Are Alternative Energy Sources the Answer to Ending Human Dependence on Oil - Research Paper Example

Are Alternative Energy Sources the Answer to Ending Human Dependence on Oil? Introduction Over the past century, there have been a number of concerns amid unprecedented environmental degradation, which experts attribute to the pervasive use of non-renewable fossil fuel energy. According to environmental specialists, human dependence on oil as the major source of energy causes irreparable harm to the environment. Sources retrieved from National Geographic indicate that over the past century, the planet has been experiencing unstable weather patterns that have caused a precarious rise in the earth’s temperature in the atmosphere. Experts reckon that industrial discharge of carbon monoxide and the escalating release of greenhouse emissions are causing irreversible damage to the ozone layer that shields the earth from dangerous rays from the sun. They argue that continued damage to the ozone will leave the planet vulnerable to the sun’s radiation, which is harmful to the environment and human life. In view of this, scholars have engaged in a heated debate: Is oil the major cause of this predicament? If so, are alternative energy sources the answer to ending human dependence on oil? Background of the Debate The term “alternative energy source” as used in this context refers to renewable sources of energy such as wind power, solar energy and bio-fuels. A section of environmental experts reckon that alternative energy sources are the answer to end human dependence on oil. Others beg to differ from this contention, and hence the heated debate. In an attempt to address this issue, it is important to consider the reason why human dependence on oil is deemed precarious. To begin with, the ongoing concerns regarding environmental degradation stem from the pervasive use of the non-renewable energy source. The persistent reliance on oil energy in major industries has borne concerns about the subsequent damage to the earth’s atmosphere amid mass emission of greenhouse gases and other precarious industrial discharges (Liverman, 2008). Take the United States, for example: the National Geographic documents that with less than 5 % of the global population, the country is the world’s leading oil user. The US oil consumption is approximately a quarter of the world’s oil consumption. Other sources indicate that over 85 % of US greenhouse emissions are attributable to oil combustion (Lohmann & Feichter, 2005). Due to the pervasive dependence on oil as the leading energy source, the earth’s atmosphere risks being exposed to dangerous gases such as carbon dioxide, sulfur oxide, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxide, and heavy metals. In view of this risk, there has been unanimous consensus that there is a need to reduce human dependence on oil. The question is whether renewable energy sources are the best bet to end human reliance on oil as a source of energy Debate Alternative Energy Is the Answer to Ending Human Dependence on Oil Proponents of this argument believe that the planet is capable of producing a significant amount of renewable energy that can facilitate industrial activities. Experts, however, reckon that due to the pervasive reliance on oil, there is a growing lack of enthusiasm to turn to alternative renewable energy sources such as wind power and solar energy as well as bio-fuels. This side of the debate is based on the claim that alternative energy sources are safer to the environment in comparison to non-renewable sources. Harvesting renewable energy is relatively cheaper than harvesting oil. Likewise, extraction of oil poses environmental risks while the harvesting of, say, solar energy or wind power causes no harm to the environment whatsoever. Proponents of this statement, therefore, argue that a shift to alternative energy would be in the best interests of the environment and human life (Ramanathan & Carmichael, 2008). According to Doug Given of the US Geological Survey, the oil industry has grown over the years to become a lucrative business venture and hence, any efforts to turn to alternative energy sources have been met with resistance from key players in the oil industry. Given believes that alternative energy sources will salvage the planet from the damage caused by fossil fuels. He reckons that global warming is one major peril caused by pervasive reliance on oil energy and that the shift to alternative energy will reduce the reliance on oil since there are a lot of renewable energy sources that remain underutilized or untapped altogether (Grubb, 2003). Counterargument Even as environmental activists endorse the use of alternative fuel to reduce human reliance on oil, a group of experts have sought to show that alternative energy sources cannot end human reliance on oil. Since the idea of alternative energy is very pleasant, there is a risk of overlooking the most important aspect of achieving it. The counterargument highlights that there is a concern regarding the feasibility of establishing renewable energy plants. Large tracts of land would be required to tap wind power energy and transform it to usable energy for consumption by the population. This would force the displacement of population for purposes of installing turbines for harvesting wind energy (Ramanathan & Carmichael, 2008). Likewise, experts concur that the feasibility of the plan to turn to renewable energy requires the amalgamation of both solar energy and wind power. The reality is that combining solar and wind energy is implausible since both occur in the absence of the other. When it is sunny, it is often calm with no wind blowing and vice versa. Reliance on each energy source solely cannot facilitate the required amount of energy (Grubb, 2003). There are also concerns about longevity. Replacing oil with alternative energy would require a long term plan. Renewable energy may last for long, but the infrastructure may not due to events such as drought, which may cause drying up of dams and shifting of river beds. Likewise, the unstable climate changes may interrupt the plan (Grubb, 2003). Reflection A lot has been said from both sides of the debate presenting viable claims to support their argument. In view of the ongoing debate, the argument that alternative energy sources are the answer to ending human dependence on oil seems to hold more weight. The question of feasibility raised in the counterargument is weak. Over the years, governments have invested billions in tapping oil reserves in the Middle East. This money could be used to purchase land required to harvest wind power and hydroelectricity while compensating those who would be forcibly displaced (Liverman, 2008). Likewise, the concerns of burning oil and the damage to environment are very real. Environmental degradation is a real concern and so is global warming. The most reasonable way of mitigating the risk of damaging our habitat is by setting up measures to preserve what is left of it. The first step would be to reduce the reliance on oil so as to reduce the rate of industrial discharge and greenhouse emissions. Once industrial discharge has been controlled, focus can be shifted towards implementing a plausible alternative energy plan. As Doug Given of the US Geological Survey indicated, the major setback towards the shift to alternative is the lack of enthusiasm and willpower to abandon oil since it is a lucrative business venture. It is important to consider the fate of the planet first by joining the “going green” campaign (Ramanathan & Carmichael, 2008). Conclusion As debate continues, the conclusion in light of the preceding discussion is that alternative energy sources are the answer to end human dependence on oil. Alternative energy is cheap and safe to both humans and the environment unlike oil, which has been found to perpetuate mass environmental damage. References Grubb, M. (2003). The economics of the Kyoto Protocol. World Economics, 4 (3), 144–145. Liverman, D. M. (2008). Conventions of climate change: Constructions of danger and the dispossession of the atmosphere. Journal of Historical Geography, 35 (2), 279–296. Lohmann, U., & J. Feichter (2005). Global indirect aerosol effects: A review. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5 (3), 715–737. Ramanathan, V., & Carmichael, G. (2008). Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon. Nature Geosciences, 1 (4), 221–22. Read More