The Renewable Energy Agenda Holds Water, Politics Aside

Used Oil
Source: Peter Griffin / www.publicdomainpictures.net

The recent survey that most Americans still favor further development of alternative energy shows that the renewable energy agenda should continue. This is not to say that pushing for it must be based from the decision of the majority alone but I think it is a wise move. The public, the economy and the environment as well must not be subjected to the ill-effects brought about by using fossil fuels.

However, the fossil fuel industry is a big business that employs millions of people worldwide. A sudden shift to a different energy source will damage the economy. What the government should do is give the unemployed the chance to work in the alternative energy industries today to help develop and build the foundations for the widespread use of these technologies later on. Then, when alternative energy has reached its full potential and is able to compete with fossil fuels, divert those who are working in the fossil fuel industry to work in the alternative energy industries as well. This slow transition would be better than a sudden switch to renewable energy.

The government is gambling on alternative energy industries to come up with commercially viable alternative energy sources today in preparation for the projected peak oil usage in 2020. We all know that if the peak oil usage happens in 2020, oil prices will go up and, in effect, the prices of various commodities will rise as well. But the rise in oil prices and commodities is not that much of a threat because what if we can afford to buy these commodities in spite of their prices? The more threatening issue here is that if there is nothing to buy.

Source: PublicDomainPictures

Recent discoveries about fracking and coal deposits could give us a sigh of relief. It could lessen the impact of increasing oil prices and it brings us closer to fuel independence. But we must only see it as a temporary solution. The problem on greenhouse gas emissions and global warming is still present and we must employ immediate measures to counteract its effects.

In the 2005 international conference "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change: A Scientific Symposium on Stabilisation of Greenhouse Gases", it is claimed that foregoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 years would mean that we must increase our efforts 3 to 7 folds by then to prevent the 2 degree centigrade ceiling on global warming. Judging from these facts, then there is no better time to develop and pursue alternative energy sources than now.

But what if we delay the development of alternative energy sources by 4 -5 years to get us a better perspective if the peak oil usage by 2020 would really happen?

If we stop pursuing alternative energy sources and continue it, let’s say, in 2016 because the predicted peak oil usage by 2020 seems to be true, there might not be enough time to prepare us for its impacts. Four years will not be enough to erect infrastructures for alternative fuels to be widely used. There might not be enough time to market, educate and test the use of alternative fuels.

Moreover, it would be wiser to spend now, little by little, to finance the alternative energy sector and minimize the effect of spending on the economy by spreading it over a much longer time frame than spending a large amount when the need is imminent. Other countries, particularly Brazil, have been implementing the use of e100 gasoline for over a decade now and we are just starting. Isn’t now the right time to push alternative fuel so that we will not be left behind?

Now is the right time to invest because if we are going to forego and face the problem of food versus fuel at a later time, the issues will be much harder to face because it will be coupled with high oil prices, high demand and immediate need.