“It’s unconscionable that any nation would continue to waste public funds on fossil fuels when clean energy sources are readily available [and] more cost-effective and healthier for families and communities across the globe.” -Nicole Ghio, Sierra Club [Carrington 2017]
Renewable energy is not only a good idea, but it is also our duty. A healthy life needs a healthy world. Each human being has the basic need for air, water, food, and shelter. Without clean air, pure water, nutrient-rich foods, and safety in one’s living conditions, the human being fails to thrive. Renewable energy affects and protects all of these basic human needs.
If renewable energy protects the basic needs of every single human being, why has the United States not implemented renewable energy efforts? The reality is that the opposition, while unfounded in fact or science, is much stronger than the truth.
There are four ways in which a pro-renewable energy position has an opposition.
The first is the fiscal opposition. The fiscal opposition to renewable energy claims that to completely “restart” our energy sources and create and maintain new technology would be too much of a financial burden to the people of any one democracy, especially the United States. In contrast to the fiscal opposition, there are more jobs in renewable energy in the United States than fossil fuel jobs. Renewable energy jobs far outweigh jobs in fossil fuels 5 to 1 [Ettenson 2017] and the technology the US needs to get started with renewable energy already exists [BCSEA]. Renewable energy would be the more financially responsible choice overall [Ellsmoor]. Mass production and installation of renewable energy sources such as solar panels and windmills would not only create more jobs and career opportunities but it also completely eliminates the need to purchase expensive oil from foreign countries. The United States would not only see an increase in jobs with renewable energy, but it would also see a grassroots effort to rely solely upon the resources gleaned from the United States versus relying on foreign countries, so renewable energy is also the most patriotic choice. No matter the political side, every American would benefit and thrive with renewable energy efforts. A better future and a better life for all Americans is non-partisan.
Another opposition is that of tradition. As with most new ideas, there are always the naysayers who believe that “we’ve always done this, why start now?”. My response to this statement is that, historically, we’ve always been able to invent new ideas, why stop now?
The third is religious opposition. Many people of the Christian faith hold the idea that climate change denial equates to holding to the Bible versus worshiping science. As a person of faith myself, I can say this simply is not true. Throughout the Christian scriptures, the Bible speaks to taking care of the world we are given. Here are some verses that support this statement:
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. [Genesis 1:26 NIV]
The wild animals honor me, the jackals and the owls, because I provide water in the wilderness and streams in the wasteland, to give drink to my people, my chosen, the people I formed for myself that they may proclaim my praise. [Isaiah 43:20–21 NIV]
While these are just a few of the verses I could write about, the truth is clear that taking care of the environment is not a threat to faith but a calling to a higher purpose as Christians have a spiritual obligation to protect the environment.
The fourth and possibly greatest opposition to renewable energy efforts is that of climate-change deniers. In order to see a better future for everyone, renewable energy assumes that most people believe climate change to be a real, undeniable fact. Many Americans are inclined to believe that climate change is a hoax in which to glean the time, money, and resources from the common working American. This quite simply is not so. In contrast to the opposition that believes climate change to be a hoax, the facts speak for themselves. Fossil fuels contribute to oil spills, air pollution, acid rain, and climate change [UCSUSA]. In addition to the pollution and climate change that fossil fuels bring to our planet, nuclear energy produces nuclear waste, and when not handled properly, nuclear waste can lay dormant for years, severely affecting the environment [Chandler 2018]. Biomass, or using biological items to produce energy, has adverse effects on soil and water sources [Ezzati 2001]. We have a duty to find and use renewable energy sources that do not contribute to such devastating ecological consequences. It is imperative that we find alternatives to fossil fuels as fossil fuels are not renewable or an infinitely reliable resource and will one day run out [Hartley 2018].
With all the aforementioned data available, why have we as a nation not taken the steps to make a better future happen? How exactly do we make a real, sustainable change?
I believe our first step would be to take a quick look at Pittsburgh Pennsylvania’s past.
In February of 2019 I had the opportunity to visit Pennsylvania. While I was excited to visit many important historical landmarks I had also learned about the unfortunate history of pollution in the industrial revolution. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania had been called “hell with the lid off” during the industrial revolution and had soot coating many of the buildings in the city [Popular Pittsburgh]. Writer Joel Tarr states that “There is probably no place in the nation that can match Pittsburgh’s dramatic changes over the past half-century. It is now a modern, beautiful city, among the most livable in the country, but it was far less livable when it was one of the world’s great manufacturing centers.” [Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, et al.] The city of Pittsburgh has seen the hellish effects of the industrial revolution and had many buildings coated in black soot. In an effort to remember the pollution of the past, the Mellon Institute of Pittsburgh has left one side of their columns uncleaned from the soot, a horrifying reminder of our use of coal and finite energy of the past [Atlas Obscura]. Unfortunately, despite the hellishness of the pollution due to the industrial revolution, it appears that the United States has still not learned its lesson. Perhaps we should take a look at how Pittsburgh redeemed this horrific situation and take note. The greatest form of change in the city of Pittsburgh came about by widespread awareness of the dangers involved in the hellishness of the smog and finally by environmental law. Writer James Longhurst states these things well:
“Even before the first Earth Day in 1970, politicians were competing for the leadership on environmental issues, resulting in the National Environmental Policy Act and successive congressional acts that nationalized pollution control in both air and water. In Pittsburgh, increased popular interest combined with the new requirements for public participation in the national laws to allow for a new round of regulations. Pollution was now being monitored and controlled by three separate legal entities, including the county, commonwealth, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).” http://pubs.awma.org/gsearch/em/2007/6/longhurst.pdf
In knowing how change came about in Pittsburgh, we can learn from the past in order to better the future.
The first step in creating change is by knowing what one is doing wrong. As previously stated, one of the biggest threats to our climate and our future is fossil fuels. For example, fossil fuels are a limited resource, and in an effort to obtain more of that resource, there have been new ways to obtain this resource. One of the most environmentally harmful techniques in obtaining oil is through fracking. Fracking is the process of forcing high-pressured water through rock to extract oil. A devastating example of how disastrous fracking is can be found in the city of Dimock, Pennsylvania. In 2009, Cabot Oil had a civil case made against them due to citizens’ drinking water being contaminated by methane, iron, and aluminum, causing the residents to experience neurological and gastrointestinal illnesses [Lustgarten 2019]. As of 2016, a federal health report on the City of Dimock stated that there were chemicals of health concern in Dimock private wells and explosive methane in 17 private wells [NPR].
In addition to the example of Dimock, there is the horrifying example of The Gulf Oil Spill of 2010. The Gulf Oil Spill involved an explosion that killed 11 people and innumerable animals were killed and/or deformed [EPA]. This is not the only oil spill in history, and it will not be the last. Accidental oil spills and/or explosions will continue to be a threat to the environment until renewable energy is accepted and used.
If we look at the way that Pittsburgh used its laws to create a less polluted Pittsburgh, perhaps we can use this as an example for how to create a less fossil fuel dependent economy.
I believe that in order to redeem the current renewable energy-deficient crisis in the same manner that Pittsburgh redeemed its pollution crisis is to create awareness of the current fossil fuel crisis and move the people to agree and act on these things politically. While laws may not be the preferred method, perhaps that is the very method we should take.
This leads me back to my main point: Renewable energy is not only a good idea, but it is also our duty. A healthy life needs a healthy world. Each human being has the basic need for air, water, food, and shelter. Without clean air, pure water, nutrient-rich foods, and safety in one’s living conditions, the human being fails to thrive. Renewable energy affects and protects all of these basic human needs. A better future and a better life for all Americans is non-partisan. May we all seek to create change in order to fulfill our duty of creating a better word not only for Americans but for the world.
Works Cited
Carrington, Damian. “G20 Public Finance for Fossil Fuels ‘Is Four Times More than Renewables’.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 5 July 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/05/g20-public-finance-for-fossil-fuels-is-four-times-more-than-renewables.
Chandler, Nathan. “How Does Nuclear Waste Disposal Work?” HowStuffWorks Science, HowStuffWorks, 28 June 2018, https://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-waste-disposal.htm.
“Deepwater Horizon — BP Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 19 Apr. 2017, https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/deepwater-horizon-bp-gulf-mexico-oil-spill.
Ellsmoor, James. “Renewable Energy Is Now The Cheapest Option — Even Without Subsidies.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 15 June 2019, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/renewable-energy-is-now-the-cheapest-option-even-without-subsidies/.
Ettenson, Lara. “U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment.” NRDC, 8 Feb. 2017, https://www.nrdc.org/experts/lara-ettenson/us-clean-energy-jobs-surpass-fossil-fuel-employment.\
Ezzati, Majid, and Daniel M. Kammen. “Quantifying the Effects of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution from Biomass Combustion on Acute Respiratory Infections in Developing Countries.” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 109, no. 5, 2001, p. 481. Gale Academic OneFile Select, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A76798913/EAIM?u=edirect_gvrl&sid=EAIM&xid=84bf65ed. Accessed 23 Nov. 2019.
“Federal Public Health Report Highlights Contaminants in Dimock’s Water | StateImpact Pennsylvania.” NPR, NPR, 25 May 2016, https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2016/05/25/federal-public-health-report-highlights-contaminants-in-dimocks-water/.
Hartley, Peter R. “The cost of displacing fossil fuels: Some evidence from Texas.” The Energy Journal, vol. 39, no. 2, 2018, p. 233+. Gale Academic OneFile Select, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A563081630/EAIM?u=edirect_gvrl&sid=EAIM&xid=b4d9c17c. Accessed 23 Nov. 2019.
Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, et al. “The Changing Face of Pittsburgh: A Historical Perspective.” Ensuring Environmental Health in Postindustrial Cities: Workshop Summary., U.S. National Library of Medicine, 1 Jan. 1970, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222035/.
Longhurst, James. “The Significance of Pittsburgh in U.S. Air Pollution History” Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA), 2007, http://pubs.awma.org/gsearch/em/2007/6/longhurst.pdf
Lustgarten, Abrahm. “Pa. Residents Sue Gas Driller for Contamination, Health Concerns.” ProPublica, 9 Mar. 2019, https://www.propublica.org/article/pa-residents-sue-gas-driller-for-contamination-health-concerns-1120.
“Pittsburgh’s Dark History.” Popular Pittsburgh, 12 June 2018, https://popularpittsburgh.com/darkhistory/.
“Renewable Energy Technologies.” BC Sustainable Energy Association, 28 Nov. 2014, https://www.bcsea.org/learn/get-the-facts/renewable-energy-technologies.
“The Hidden Costs of Fossil Fuels.” Union of Concerned Scientists, https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/hidden-costs-fossil-fuels.
Ugc. “The Soot-Covered Columns of Carnegie Mellon.” Atlas Obscura, Atlas Obscura, 6 June 2017, https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/mellon-institute-columns.