Transitioning to renewable energy: a necessity, surely – but is it seen that way by all?

by Christopher Brodrick

Australia is experiencing something of a crisis in its greenhouse gas and renewable energy legislation. Current Prime Minister Tony Abbott, from the Liberal-National coalition, has repealed the carbon tax – which penalised carbon-producing industry – passed by the previous Labour government. Allegedly, this was done in order to stimulate the economy and prevent the loss of jobs. This has sparked enormous controversy, with Labour saying that Abbott is “taking Australia backwards while the rest of the world is moving forward". The acquisition of future funding is now of particular concern to research institutions and organisations that are actively involved in transitioning fossil-fuel-dominated industry to a more renewable culture.   

The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) – which aims to increase renewable energy use in Australia, and make renewables more affordable – faces the possibility of having much of its funding cut in the future. Ironically, with no political or financial support, private businesses in the renewable energy sector are likely to experience job losses. They will be unable to hire scientists and engineers as they used to, and thus growth will be hampered; consequently, the short-term future looks very bleak.

In the ‘How to Talk to an Ostrich’ climate change series, Richard Alley (the renowned climate change scientist and activist) discussed that a shift to clean energy can be achieved, using an analogy from 18^th Century Scotland. In short, the story deals with a Londoner visiting Edinburgh and being confronted with the city’s technique of discarding human waste by means of emptying chamber pots from upper stories into the cobbled streets below. Although shocked by this practice (and also the way that the locals didn’t seem to bat an eyelid at this regularity), the Londoner noted that he did not see a financially viable remedy for the situation, as installing conveyances and receivers for this waste en masse would seemingly be an expense too great for the economy of the time to bear.

In due course, however, large-scale sanitation systems were installed in Edinburgh, and countless other cities, ensuring access to clean water and preventing water-borne diseases from ravaging the populace. A mandatory societal progression - we dare not contemplate modern life without its implementation!

Now to the analogy of this story with climate change: on Earth, fossil fuels are being burned, producing CO₂, which can be seen as a form of ‘human waste’. Just as the chamber pots were being emptied onto the public streets, so CO₂ is being dumped into the public space – our homogenous atmosphere. Human waste running freely on the streets had consequences – infection, sickness, death – and so too will increasing CO₂ levels have consequences – rising temperatures and sea levels, changing weather patterns, intensifying extreme events – which in turn result in serious social implications. The sanitation crisis of 18^th Century Britain forced the authorities into action, which produced a sewage system that remedied the situation. In round numbers, it is estimated that the Scottish government of the time had to spend 1% of its economy on the implementation of this system. It is also estimated that transferring our dependence onto renewable energy would cost current governments a similar figure (although this figure is increasing steadily every year where little or no action is taken!) So it comes down to sacrificing a (relatively) large capital investment now, in order to prevent future generations from a serious and irreversible crisis. For some, as illustrated in the case of Australia, this does not seem to be priority; I wonder if people felt the same way about sanitation in the 18^th Century? Or is it just because the effects of water-borne disease were imminent and affected present generations in real time, and climate change is not quite as explicitly ‘felt’ in real time, so to speak, not really affecting the present generation as much as it will future ones?

Alley’s analogy is not without its flaws: the source of human waste is never addressed (the waste itself just gets redirected and treated), whereas switching to renewable energy deals with reducing the source of CO₂ rather than redirecting emissions. Trivial discrepancies in the analogy, however, are not worth getting worked-up about: the real issue is that there is a problem, which has – and will increasingly have – serious implications, and this problem needs to be addressed. It has been done in the past, so shouldn’t it be done again now?

Image: http://www.sustainable.co.za/blog/2013/08/urban-turbines-wind-power-for-domestic-use/