For a long, long time, it was the one thing on the mind of almost everyone across the country–and the world–almost endlessly. It spawned feature-length documentaries, endless scientific studies and debate after debate. The hole in the ozone was the paramount concern of environmentalists everywhere for years. And now the concern has seemingly disappeared as the hole is headed in a better direction thanks to huge action on the part of nations all over the world. Now, how will action taken to combat climate change affect the Earth?
The so called fracking boom in the United States has slowed as oil prices have dropped. In February of this year, it was reported that the number of natural gas rigs in the US has been dropping steadily for quite some time now. It’s been well-established by studies and backed by President Obama that natural gas has a smaller negative impact on our environment than oil and coal. So when the fracking boom reached its height, murmurs of the US’s energy independence began to grow louder. Talks of the relationship between less foreign dependence and lower carbon emissions have been abound, spurring headlines speaking to the possibility of imminent US energy independence.
But recent studies have indicated that mitigating climate change may not be quite as simple as gaining energy independence from other countries.
The study, published on June 7th from the Universiteit van Amsterdam is titled in fairly conclusive language, “Pursuing energy independence will hardly mitigate climate change.” According to Bob van der Zwaan, who is cited in the study, “This study refutes the idea that a policy focusing on energy independence more or less automatically results in sufficient reduction of greenhouse gases.”
The key, according to van der Zwaan, a professor of Sustainable Energy Technology at Universiteit van Amsterdam is reducing emissions as a whole. “In planning future energy systems, countries can best focus on technology that contributes to both emissions reductions and energy independence, although the emphasis should always be on technology lowering humankind’s carbon footprint.’”
In order to enact the level of change we saw with the ozone layer’s seeming reversal of fate a decade or so ago, larger-scale change will be necessary, more directly related to renewable energy. Natural gas, despite being better for the environment (perhaps “less bad” would be a better way of putting it) is still at its core a nonrenewable energy source. So while the US may lead all nations on Earth in terms of its natural gas usage, the nation ranks 10th in terms of renewable energy use.
The 14 percent of electricity that was generated by renewable sources in 2014 pales in comparison to countries like Scotland or Costa Rica whose 97 and 99 percent renewable sources rank them numbers three and two in the world. Sweden recently became the first fossil fuel independent nation recently, setting the bar high for the US.
Political leaders tend to be torn on the subject. Typically, those on the right tend to lean towards a reliance on fossil fuels, considering green energy to be a waste of time, money and effort on our behalf. Those on the left, in contrast, often put a higher priority in switching from fossil fuels to natural gas, then to completely green and renewable energy. Few from either side of the political spectrum, however, have concrete plans as to how our reliance on their energy-source of choice will be implemented, and how it will affect our planet.