Sustainable Energy: Shifting the Paradigm
An Idea Whose Time Has Come
Alice Slater
You
can add your own comments and ideas about the present paper that will be
visible to other readers of the article.
Click on BLOG and write your comments
at the bottom of the page.
Home
Alice Slater is the New York Director of the Nuclear Age
Peace Foundation. She is a member of the Global Council of Abolition 2000, a
global network working for a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons and directs the
network’s Sustainable Energy Working Group which produced a model statute for
an International Sustainable Energy Agency. She is on the Board of the Lawyer’s
Committee for Nuclear Policy, is a member of the Energy Committee of the NYC
Bar Association, and serves on the Executive Committee of the Middle Powers
Initiative, working to create pressure on nuclear weapons states for swifter
nuclear disarmament. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Nuclear
Policy Research Institute and the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear
Power in Space, and serves on the Steering Committee of the Indian Point Safe
Energy Coalition. Ms. Slater has organized numerous conferences, panels, and
roundtables at the UN, and speaks frequently at meetings and conferences in the
US and abroad. She has written numerous articles and op-eds, and often appears
on local and national media.
Today’s dominant world energy systems, relying on
fossil, nuclear and biofuels, endanger the very existence of humanity. The
world is faced with a crisis that requires a total transformation in the way we
create energy, shifting to sustainable energy that flows freely from the sun,
the wind, the tides, and the center of the earth. Accelerating weather
catastrophes – tsunamis, hurricanes, drought, the melting of the polar ice caps
– underline the urgency to heed the scientific consensus that we are
endangering our very survival on the planet with the continued use of
carbon-based fuels.
Just this spring, we heard disturbing reports of
food riots in more than 25 poor countries around the planet,[1]
caused by food shortages, due to drastic changing weather conditions and tragic
efforts to grow food crops for fuel, pitting affluent car owners against the
two billion poor on our planet who struggle to get enough to eat, without even
offering any significant benefits to the environment.[2]
The push for biofuels is driven by massive industrial agricultural
corporations, seeking ever-larger profits, as they misrepresent the actual
costs to society of their polluting energy programs, in league with the fossil
and nuclear fuel industries. They spend tens of millions of dollars on huge
public relations operations, grinding out distorted facts and hiring false
witnesses to confuse the public about the real solutions to our energy needs
harnessing the abundant free energy from the sun, wind, tides, and geothermal
from deep within mother earth – because corporations are unable to control the
production of free earth energy or turn it into profit. [3]
How can you sell the sun, the wind, the tides?
Moreover, the recent
failures of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, the Millennium
Summit and the General Assembly to meaningfully address issues of nuclear
disarmament and nuclear proliferation should serve as a wake up call to nations
that we cannot continue “business as usual.” The drums of war are beating once
again, as the United States seeks to deny Iran its “inalienable right” under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue so-called “peaceful” nuclear technology.
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)
Fortuitously, this April,
the German government convened a preparatory meeting of 60 countries to plan
for the establishment of an International Renewable Energy Agency which would
empower developing countries with the ability to access the free and abundant
energy of the sun, wind, marine, and geothermal sources; would train, educate,
and disseminate information about implementing sustainable energy programs;
organize and enable the transfer of science and know-how of renewable energy
technologies; and generally be responsible for helping the world make the
critical transition to a sustainable energy future. They subsequently issued an
invitation to all interested countries to attend the Founding Conference for
IRENA to be held in November 2008 in Berlin which will adopt IRENA’s statutes,
agree on an initial working program, outlining IRENA’s first activities and
establishing interim structures to allow for a prompt commencement of the work.
To move forward, a Working
Program Group and a Statutes and Finance Working Group have been established
which will meet in Berlin from June 30 to July 1st with preparatory
documents going out to all participants, and results forwarded to other
interested countries in July with requests for comments by August. In
September, results will be sent to all countries interested in becoming members
of IRENA before its Founding Conference to be held in November 2008.[4]
Help is on the way and civil society will be calling on their governments to
support this worthy effort to save our planet from environmental catastrophe.[5]
Since Irene is the Greek word for peace, this new initiative is particularly
well named, adding resonance to the peaceful benefits of sustainable energy,
the reliance upon which will preclude further global strife and conflict over
resources.
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
Today some 2.4 billion
people still have no access to modern energy services and one quarter of the
world’s population lives without electricity.[6]
Sustainable sources of energy will have a substantial impact on poverty
alleviation in developing countries, offering access to readily available,
cost-free energy sources while integrating growing energy needs and sustainable
development goals. Sustainable energy coupled with energy efficiency offers
solutions to the critical challenges of our time – climate change, energy
security, nuclear proliferation risks and economic development.
Solar Power
Every
thirty minutes, enough of the sun’s energy reaches the earth’s surface to meet
global energy demand for an entire year.[7] The
sun is a fireball of free energy that can be harnessed for hot water and
temperature control using solar collectors. In addition, solar energy can be
used to provide electricity utilizing photovoltaic (PV) technology, which
generates electricity from sunlight without producing green house gases. The Worldwatch Institute
reports that already, “rooftop solar collectors provide hot water to nearly 40
million households worldwide.”[8]
Solar PV is versatile, and can produce stand-alone electricity or connect to
existing electricity grids. The
solar energy available in a 100-square-mile area of Nevada could supply the
United States with all its electricity needs.[9]
Wind Power
Wind
has the potential to satisfy the world’s electricity needs 40 times over, and
could meet all global energy demand five times over.[10] One US
study concluded that, “good wind areas, which cover 6% of the contiguous U.S.
land area, have the potential to supply more than one and a half times the
current electricity consumption of the United States.”[11] Globally, the wind energy
market grew a staggering 40.5% in 2005.[12]
In Europe, wind installed capacity has already exceeded the European
Commission’s goals of 40GW before the end of the decade.[13]
Germany is the European leader, with more than 18GW of installed wind capacity.[14]
In Navarra, Spain, half of the electricity consumption is met by wind power and
in Denmark wind represents 20% of the electricity production.[15]
India is now the world’s fourth-largest producer of
wind energy.[16] In China, wind energy grew
at a 60% rate in 2005.[17]
Geothermal Power
Geothermal energy is produced when magma rising from the
Earth’s core heats nearby water, creating high-temperature water and vapor
which is converted to electricity by pumping steam out of the ground and
through a turbine, to power a generator. Geothermal energy is also used
directly to heat and cool buildings and in agriculture.[18]
Geothermal
energy stored in
the top six miles of the Earth’s crust contains an estimated 50,000 times the
energy of the world’s known oil and gas resources.[19] Geothermal energy can meet
100% of all electricity needs in 39 developing countries and could serve the
needs of 865 million people around the world.[20]
Even in regions without heavy geothermal activity, the regular heating of the
ground by the sun can be harnessed to heat and cool homes.[21]
Tidal Energy and
Smaller-Scale Hydropower
Both
tidal, wave and smaller-scale hydroelectric projects are a significant
improvement over traditional, ‘big dam’ hydroelectric power and large
ocean-based tidal barrages which are environmentally destructive.[22]
Tide-powered marine turbines are preferred. Northern Ireland is expected to
generate 1,200 kW of electricity from marine turbines and it is estimated that
tidal streams could meet 5-7% of the U.K.’s electricity needs. For inland regions, small-scale riverbank projects can
produce electricity for agriculture or other uses.[23] Wave power
and tidal energy has been estimated to be able to produce 20% of Britain’s
electricity.[24]
The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates
the potential of global wave power to be 2 to 3 million MW, with wave
energy density averages of 65 MW per mile of coastline in favorable places.[25]
INTERMITTENCY: A CONCERN OF THE PAST
When the sun doesn’t shine
and the wind doesn’t blow, we can interconnect renewable energy sources or
store the energy as hydrogen.[26]
Distributed solar PV can also produce electricity on-site, making it “harder to
disrupt, more stable, and less brittle than full reliance on centrally
generated power.” [27]
Geothermal energy is unaffected by weather patterns and tidal patterns can be
predicted centuries into the future. Hydrogen fuel, made by electrolysis, can be
stored as liquid or compressed gas and either be combusted like conventional
fuel or used in fuel cells to produce electricity. The only byproducts of the
fuel cell recombination are heat and water vapor, pure enough to drink!
Importantly, electrolysis can be performed using the power of the sun, the
wind, the tides, geothermal, creating a perfect circle of sustainable energy
while providing back up fuel to store for periods of intermittency.[28]
Significantly, the power outage rate of fossil-fuel power plants is about
8%, compared to wind turbines at only 2%.[29]
Fossil fuel supply lines are also vulnerable to political instability as in
Nigeria, where internal turmoil decreased oil production by 20%.[30] But
temporary energy shortages are a minor concern compared to the fact that the
world’s oil production will “peak” in the very near future, and global supply
will be unable to keep up with demand.[31]
Without a rapid transition away from petroleum dependence, a sustained global
energy crisis could trigger bloody resource wars over access to remaining
fossil fuel reserves. Uranium resources are also limited and may be depleted as
soon as fifty years from now.[32]
However, there has yet to be a weather forecast predicting the imminent
disappearance of the sun, wind, or tides.
HYDROGEN:
THE KEY TO SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
By 2030, according to a US Department of
Energy report, “wind- and solar-based hydrogen systems…can produce enough
hydrogen to virtually eliminate petroleum energy use and greenhouse gas
emissions from the light-duty transportation sector.”[33]
In Spain, hydrogen production for transportation is now considered an
alternative to costly grid reinforcements, as a way of exploiting the
[region’s] vast wind resources. Producing hydrogen fuel for an American
light-duty fuel cell vehicle (FCV) fleet would consume about the same amount of
water that is currently used to produce conventional gasoline.[34]
Any water used to produce hydrogen will be returned to that cycle in the form
of fuel cell water vapor emissions. Current transportation methods are
responsible for 27% of America’s greenhouse gas emissions[35]
and 14% of emissions worldwide.[36]
Manufacturers are consistently improving the distances that FCV’s can go
without refueling, and some prototypes can travel as far as 300 miles before
refueling.[37]
Icelandic New Energy – a public-private
partnership for the advancement of a hydrogen economy in Iceland – says Iceland
could become “the first fossil-free hydrogen society
in the world,” [38]shifting completely to hydrogen produced by
geothermal and hydropower energy sources by 2050.[39]
Hydrogen fuel cell buses in Reykjavík[40] are now a part of a program, in nine cities across
Europe.[41]
Hydrogen busses are also used in Australia, Japan, and as
part of China’s “Green Olympics” program for the 2008 Summer Games in Beijing.[42] Icelandic New Energy
started the H-Ship project in 2004, testing the viability of fuel cells in
ships. Japan expects to have a hybrid fuel cell train
in operation by the end of 2007.[43] Hydrogen is a viable fuel
for air travel and NASA has been using it to power its space shuttles, using
the steam as drinking water for the crew.
BIOFUEL, COAL, AND
NUCLEAR ENERGY: UNSUSTAINABLE DEAD ENDS
Sustainable
energy is also a better alternative to industrial biofuel, “clean” coal, and
nuclear energy. Resources invested in these technologies divert valuable and
finite resources that can be applied in the development and promotion of
sustainable energies
Industrial Biofuel –
Factory Farming for Energy
Biofuels
are being falsely promoted by industrial agriculture as a replacement for gasoline
with less carbon impact. U.S. refiners anticipate doubling their use of
corn-based ethanol to eight billion gallons a year by 2012.[44] The
European Union hopes to meet 20% of its fuel needs for road transportation
using biomass.[45]
Unconstrained industrial biofuel production is already producing dire
consequences. The limited availability of the world’s arable land results in
biofuel feedstock taking priority over food crops.[46] There
is heavy use of pesticides as well as petroleum-based fertilizers. The runoff
from these additives contributes to the expansion of ‘dead zones’ – aquatic
areas so polluted with nitrates and industrial waste they cannot support life.
Significant expansion of biofuel
feedstock production will cause widespread deforestation in regions such as
South East Asia. The Malaysian government intends to develop 3 million hectares
of new oil palm plantations by 2011,[47]
even though oil palm production is responsible for an estimated 87% of the
deforestation in Malaysia from 1985 to 2000.[48]
In addition to decreasing biodiversity, deforestation limits the
planet’s ability to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, undermining one
of the main justifications for using biofuels in the first place.[49]
Coal – Carbon Will Always Pollute
The coal industry argues that coal can be
made environmentally friendly by sequestering carbon: capturing and storing
coal’s carbon emissions before they enter the atmosphere, in large underground
reservoirs or reservoirs under the ocean which would require storage for
hundreds or thousands of years before any carbon could be released.[50] Even
coal’s supporters concede this may produce leaks in storage containers leading
to water displacement, groundwater contamination, or even human asphyxiation.[51] The
additional energy required for carbon sequestration could also accelerate coal
consumption, hampering the reduction of carbon emissions through long-term
sustainable solutions.
Coal mining and burning causes havoc to land,
groundwater, local ecosystems and human health. In West Virginia, coal producers are blowing
up hilltops to access coal seams, dumping the leftover rock and dirt into
nearby valleys. With mountain top removal, hundreds of feet of dirt, plants,
and rock above the coal seam are blasted off and dumped over the side of the
mountain, smothering streams, polluting the air, and eroding the soils. One
study calculated that mountain top removal in the Appalachian coalfields
resulted in 724 miles of streams buried and thousands of acres of destroyed forests.[52]
Coal-fired electric power plants
are the largest source of human-caused mercury air emissions in the U.S.,
accounting for about 40% of mercury emissions in the country.[53]
Neurological abnormalities from mercury exposure include deficiencies in
memory, attention, language, movement and cerebral palsy.[54]
One study found that 8% of women had mercury blood levels exceeding the level
deemed safe for unborn children.[55]
Nuclear – Never Far
from a Disaster
The nuclear industry is now
flocking for nuclear power, asserting its potential to lower greenhouse gas
emissions. It even maintains that nuclear energy produces electricity, “without
polluting the environment.”[56]
However, every step of the nuclear fuel cycle – mining, milling, production,
transportation and disposal of waste – relies on fossil fuels and produces
greenhouse gas emissions. A complete life-cycle analysis shows that generating
electricity from nuclear power emits 20-40% of the carbon dioxide per kilowatt
hour (kWh) of a gas-fired system when the whole system is taken into account.[57]
Nuclear power is the slowest
and costliest way to reduce CO2 emissions, as financing nuclear
power diverts scarce resources from investments in renewable energy and energy
efficiency. The enormous costs of nuclear power per unit of carbon emissions
reduced would actually worsen our ability to abate climate change as we would
be buying less carbon-free energy per dollar spent on nuclear power compared to
the emissions we would save by investing those dollars in solar, wind or energy
efficiency.[58] A Massachusetts
Institute of Technology study on the future of nuclear power indicates that
1500 new nuclear reactors would have to be constructed worldwide by mid-century
for nuclear power to have a modest impact on the reduction of greenhouse
gasses.[59]
Further, nuclear power’s impact in mitigating climate change and reducing oil
dependence is limited to the production of electricity.
Nuclear power
plants in the United States alone have produced more than 80,000 tons of highly
radioactive waste for which there is no suitable storage location.[60]
This waste will remain lethal to human health and the environment for more than
250,000 years, and its continued production poses an unacceptable burden on
present and future generations. Numerous nuclear power plants have been leaking
radioactive toxins into groundwater and soil.[61] Radiation causes cancer,
various immune deficiencies, infant mortality and chromosomal mutations. While
the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) sanctions the radioactive content of
“routine releases,” the National Academy of Sciences concluded that there is no
“safe” level of radiation exposure.”[62]
The nuclear power industry
has demonstrated that it cannot compete in a liberalized electricity market. Despite
the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars the nuclear industry it received since
1948, the industry still can’ t operate without massive subsidies, tax breaks
and incentives. In the U.S., the 2005 Energy Bill allocated over $13 billion in
direct and indirect subsidies for the nuclear industry.[63]
The U.S. nuclear industry is estimated to have received more than $115 billion
in direct subsidies from 1947 through 1999. Government subsidies for wind and
solar energy for the same period totaled only $5.49 billion.[64]
Nuclear power construction
cost estimates have been notoriously inaccurate in the past. By factors of two
or more. DOE data reveals that the total estimated cost of 75 of today’s
existing nuclear units was $45 billion (in 1990 dollars),[65]
and the actual costs turned out to be $145 billion. The estimated cost of
$1,500 – $2,000 per KW for the new generation of nuclear plants is extremely
optimistic and unlikely to be achieved as evidenced by the prices of recently
built nuclear power plants in Japan, which were much higher, ranging between
$1,796 and $2,827 per KW (2003 US dollars).[66]
Nuclear storage
facilities and power plants are vulnerable to accidents or attacks, and to
hazards from transporting nuclear waste by truck, train or ship. The Chernobyl
disaster may ultimately cause 270,000 cases of cancer, of which 93,000 could be
fatal.[67]
There is also concern regarding terrorist or wartime attacks for which there is
little defense, as ‘mock attacks’ carried out by the NRC against nuclear power
plants from 2000-2001 were successful in nearly half of the tests performed.[68] A terrorist or military
attack resulting in a core meltdown would carry a disastrous human toll, with
estimates of upwards of 15,000 acute radiation deaths and up to one million
deaths from cancer.[69]
In addition, in a much less hypothetical example, the Indian Point nuclear
reactors, located some 30 miles from New York City, were listed as suggested
targets in documents found from Al-Qaeda after the World Trade Center attacks.
In addition, the
nuclear fuel cycle involves numerous byproducts and processes that can also be
utilized for weapons purposes, literally making every nuclear power plant a
potential nuclear bomb factory.[70]
Indeed, civilian nuclear programs in Israel, India, and Pakistan, enabled each
of those countries to covertly develop nuclear weapons as a result of their
“peaceful” nuclear energy programs. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Director Mohammed El-Baradei paints an even grimmer picture, saying, “We just
cannot continue business as usual…we are really talking about 30, 40 countries
sitting on the fence with a nuclear weapons capability that could be converted
into a nuclear weapon in a matter of months.”[71] Currently, Iran’s
assertion of its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to uranium
enrichment is raising international concerns as the same technologies used for
the production of nuclear power can be used to produce nuclear weapons. The proposal
to create a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to reprocess used nuclear fuel
and create an international network of nuclear fuel and technology transfer
would further increase
current proliferation risks. Reprocessing nuclear spent fuel would be a
dangerous shift in global nonproliferation policy and would increase the
likelihood that fissile material could be stolen to build a nuclear bomb.
Sustainable Energy: Good Choice for the Economy
Dollar for
dollar, the economic rewards from sustainable energy investments continue to
outpace those from conventional energy sources. Sustainable energy sources
provide more jobs “per MW of power installed, per unit of energy produced, and
per dollar investment than the fossil fuel-based energy sector.”[72] The
sustainable energy sector is experiencing virtually unprecedented financial
success. Currently
a $2.5 billion industry, solar PV is projected to grow an average of almost 20%
a year through 2020.[73]
Wind energy is also booming, with a record-setting $3 billion worth of new
equipment installed in the U.S. alone last year.[74]
Some forecasts anticipate that solar and wind energy will each constitute a $40
billion to $50 billion industry by 2014.[75]
Already a $1.5 billion industry in its own right, geothermal energy may grow by
up to 15% annually in some sectors, and the DOE predicts that foreign
governments will spend as much as $40 billion from 2003 to 2023 to build
geothermal energy plants.[76]
The Union of
Concerned Scientists estimates that 355,000 new jobs in American manufacturing, construction, operation, maintenance, and other
industries can be created if the United States obtained 20% of its
energy from sustainable sources by 2020.[77] Solar power alone
is expected to provide more than 150,000 U.S. jobs by 2020.[78] The Breakthrough
Technologies Institute estimates that the hydrogen fuel cell industry could
create up to 189,000 jobs in direct and indirect employment by 2021.[79]
Germany now employs 170,000 people in its sustainable energy sector, and
substantial future growth is anticipated.[80]
On a global scale, over 1.7 million people are
already directly employed in sustainable energy manufacturing, technology, and
maintenance, with indirect employment believed to be several times higher.[81]
Sound Policies to Fast-Track Sustainable Energy
Sustainable
energy still faces the challenge of becoming more cost-competitive with
conventional sources. The “ Catch 22
element at work,” according to Peter Fraenkel of Marine Current Turbines Ltd.,
is that marine and other sustainable energy sources become affordable “ once
they are perfected and then deployed on a large scale…but while costs and risks
are high there is no incentive for large-scale deployment.” [82] Thus, governments must get
“ ahead of the curve” by enacting policies that more accurately reflect the
true costs and benefits of both conventional and sustainable energy sources.
One effective mechanism is net metering, which offers small-scale energy producers a
significant savings by allowing them to sell their surplus energy back to the
grid. Technology procurement, tradable certificate programs, increased
funding of sustainable energy production, development of codes and standards,
and simplification of the permitting process can remove the roadblocks that
currently impede faster development of sustainable energies. Promoting a more
efficient use of energy is one of the cheapest and fastest ways to move towards
a sustainable energy future. According to the US Department of Energy,
improving building energy efficiency by 30% could reduce consumer costs in the
U.S. by $38 billion over a 15-year period.[83]
Obstacles to a Sustainable Energy Economy
Subsidies and Incentives
Market distortions - such as
subsidies and the failure to account for the true societal cost of conventional
energy - have unjustly benefited the nuclear, fossil, and biomass industries
for decades. Worldwide, conventional energy sources received approximately $250
billion in 2003 in government subsidies,[84]
for example, while combined U.S. and European government support for renewable
energy totaled just $10 billion the following year.[85]
The World Bank allotted just 9% of its energy financing in 2005 to sustainable
projects.[86]
According to the United Nations Development Program, the unfair advantages
afforded to unsustainable energy, “discourage new entrants into the market and
undermine the pursuit of energy efficiency.”[87]
Subsidies, incentives, and
other forms of assistance are the economic lifeblood of the nuclear industry.
Nuclear power receives 61% of the European Union’s energy-related research and
development funding even though it contributes only 13% of the region’s energy.[88]
In addition, the unacceptably high cost of insurance, waste removal and
storage, and decommissioning would make nuclear energy completely untenable in
a truly equalized marketplace. The US nuclear industry has been shielded from
this reality by measures such as the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, which protects it from full liability in
the case of an accident and shifts the burden of the financial obligation,
after $10 billion, to the taxpayer.[89]
In the event of a core meltdown, however, the economic damage could total trillions of dollars.[90]
The fossil fuel industry has
also thrived from disproportionate incentives such as a Clinton-era initiative,
the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act, which will allow oil and gas companies to avoid royalty payments on
over $65 billion worth of revenues for the next five years at a cost of $9.5
billion with losses to the treasury over 25 years at approximately $20 billion.”[91] The U.S. 2005 Energy Bill also provided royalty relief, tax breaks and other incentives for
the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries, which have been estimated at $27
billion.[92] The oil industry has
responded in kind, having spent almost $190 million in U.S. campaign
contributions since 1989.[93]
Fossil
fuels receive indirect subsidies as well, often in the form of military support
to maintain secure oil supply lines. The US spends more than $50 billion a year
maintaining troop readiness to intervene in the Persian Gulf during peacetime.[94]
That sum alone does not account for the enormous costs of war often driven by a
need to secure energy resources.
Unaccounted Costs:
Externalities
Unsustainable energy sources
are misleadingly under-priced because their market values do not account for
the toll they take on human health and the environment. These costs are paid by society at large and
include environmental costs associated with ecological disasters, air pollution,
and climate change, and health, social and productivity costs – characterized as “externalities”
by economists. The calculation of external costs is not a simple task. But
“…not to incorporate externalities in prices is to implicitly assign a value of
zero, a number that is demonstrably wrong.”[95]
Even without quantifying the
risks from radioactive waste or weapons proliferation, for example, nuclear
energy produces up to $2.7 billion a year in external costs in the EU-15
countries alone.[96] A
recent study calculated that 75,000 American lives could be extended each year
with a decrease in the soot and particulates that pollute our cities’ air.[97]
The rewards could be even greater for cities such as Bombay, India, where just
breathing the air has been compared to smoking more than two packs of
cigarettes a day.[98] In 1999, the real cost of
gasoline was estimated to lie between $5.60 and $15.14 per gallon, when the
price at the pump was barely more than a dollar per gallon.[99]
Though the immense
advantages of sustainable energy are difficult to quantify, monetizing the
costs and benefits of sustainable and unsustainable energies is indispensable
to understanding their comparative prices. A study in the journal Nature, for example, puts the total value of the world’s ecosystem services at an
average of $36 trillion a year.[100]
Another study concluded that if externalities were included in petroleum-based
electricity prices, their cost would double, immediately making sustainable
energy more cost-competitive.[101]
The European Wind Energy
Association estimates that when external costs are accounted for, electricity
produced using gas and coal carries a total social cost up to twice that of
wind.[102]
Despite the difficulty of calculating the costs, it is clear that understanding
the penalty society pays for unsustainable energies is an essential part of the
rapid transition away from reliance on those sources.
Conclusion: Democracy and Stability At Home and Abroad
Little action is needed to
convince the world’s citizens of sustainable energy’s power and promise. In a
2000 survey, 76% of respondents from 27 countries agreed with the statement
that human beings should “coexist with nature” rather than “ master nature.”[103]
Europeans believe that sustainable energy more than any other energy source
will be affordable, efficient, and environmentally sound in the next fifty
years.[104]
Americans agree, with more than 85% supporting greater funding for sustainable
energy research and development and only a third in favor of reducing foreign
oil dependence through drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (36%),
building more coal-burning electric plants (33%), or constructing new nuclear
power plants (36%).[105]
Relying on sustainable
energy would promote democratic values and the international aspirations
embodied in the United Nations. Most conventional energy sources are centrally
controlled, produced, and distributed, leaving many consumers with few choices
regarding where their energy comes from or how it is produced. Sustainable
energy can be decentralized to allow end-users greater freedom in deciding how
their energy will be both produced and consumed. Governments can foster this
dynamic by encouraging greater local control over energy-related decisions. In
Denmark, for example, two-thirds of wind turbines are
cooperatively owned. This has given local communities a direct stake in the
projects’ success and increased their overall support.[106]
Similarly, small-scale hydropower projects in Sri Lanka are often managed by
Electricity Consumer Companies, where locals’ decisions are made on issues
ranging from setting tariffs, to end-uses, to resolving disputes between
consumers.[107]
In addition to
regional and national initiatives, the switch to sustainable energy must
receive genuine support at the international level. Currently, there is no
global institution to promote and implement a transition to a sustainable
energy economy. For nearly fifty years, the International Atomic Energy Agency
has promoted nuclear energy, while the International Energy Agency, established
in 1974 during the OPEC oil crisis, is mandated to secure adequate supplies of
fossil fuels. The welcome announcement of plans to establish an International
Renewable Energy Agency would address the critical need for a global commitment
for a world-wide transformation to a 21st century safe, nuclear and
carbon-free energy future.[108]
September 2000
bore witness to a rare moment of global unity when every member of the United
Nations pledged to meet a set of eight Millennium Development Goals by the year
2015. Three of those goals bear repeating here:
v Eradicate
extreme hunger and poverty;
v Ensure
environmental sustainability;
v Develop a global
partnership for development.
The Millennium
Goals are a demonstration of the possible, and they place a moral obligation in
the hands of every citizen to demand environmentally responsible practices from
their leaders and themselves. Politicians, businesspeople, diplomats,
academics, workers, and activists, all share a common bond and a common
responsibility to help realize these goals by supporting a rapid transition to
plentiful sustainable energy. The barriers to this transition are not
technological, but political. The failure to make this transformation would
occur not from a lack of solutions, but from a subversion of democracy.