Ending Human Dependence on Oil - Term Paper Example

Ending Human Dependence on Oil Introduction 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. 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? Concerns The World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change articulated a wide range of concerns based on the fact that human beings are becoming overly dependent on oil as a major source of energy. The World Bank Report tabulated surveys conducted under the auspices of Gallup International indicate a steady rise in human reliance on oil energy ranging from automobile in terms of petroleum products, industrial for propelling machines to domestic (World Bank, 2010). The systemic dependence on oil as the leading energy source has, in turn, seen the oil industry rise to become one of the most powerful and influential forces in the society. This has led to the emergence of the lucrative oil business yielding oil tycoons in the Middle East and powerful multinational corporations in Europe and America. Atmospheric Pollution According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, industrial pollution, which emanates from the industrial overreliance on oil energy, is the leading cause of atmospheric and environmental pollution. Echoing the same sentiments, Nobel laureate, the late Professor Wangari Mathaai, speaking on behalf of the United Nations Environmental Program, called for alternative measures to preserve the environment from the damage caused by industrial operations. UNEP estimates that the global industrial sector consumes an estimated 37 percent of world oil energy. Further research indicates that over half of carbon dioxide emission comes from industrial operations while 21 percent of CO2 emission comes from automobile pollution. Industrial operations yield a further 90 percentage of sulphur dioxide and other greenhouse emissions (World Bank, 2010). Mitigation Recent industrial trends have perpetuated mass environmental damage with the leading polluters being large oil multinationals such as Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon and BP. In face of this unwarranted environmental damage, experts have concurred that human reliance on oil energy is detrimental to environmental safety. Since the formation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) following the 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, there emerged fresh concerns about the adverse effects of industrial pollution (Lohmann & Feichter, 2005). Following a series of deliberations, environmental scientists reckoned that the pervasive use of oil energy in the industrial sector was causing irreparable damage to the water cycle perpetuating unstable weather patterns. In light of these concerns, there emerged a fresh call for the stabilization of the concentrations of carbon dioxide, greenhouse gas and other industrial emissions in the atmosphere. Stabilizing the concentration of these pollutants was aimed at maintaining a level that would prevent precarious anthropogenic interference with the climate system. As a result, an environmental treaty dubbed the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was initiated in 1997 (World Bank, 2010). The rationale of the Kyoto Protocol was to initiate climate change mitigation efforts by regulating atmospheric pollution and ozone damage resulting from industrial emissions. Prelude to the Debate The term ‘alternative energy source’ 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 the country is the world’s leading oil user with less than 5 % of the global population (World Bank, 2010). 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 (World Bank, 2010). 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 There is unanimous consensus that oil energy is a non-renewable type of energy, which will be depleted if the current extraction of fossil fuels persists (World Bank, 2010). On the other hand, alternative energy such as solar, wind and hydro-electric power are renewable sources of energy. As such, the most logical inference is that the continued reliance on non-renewable sources of energy poses a foreseeable risk to human existence as opposed to the use of renewable sources that cannot be depleted. In view of this concern, the objective is to determine whether the resolution to turn into alternative energy is the answer to end human reliance 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 (Lohmann & Feichter, 2005). 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). Risk Mitigation According to Doug Given of the US Geological Survey, the oil industry has grown over the years to become a lucrative business venture; 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 (Lohmann & Feichter, 2005). 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). Humanitarian concerns Further research indicates that the continued operation of major oil companies have been detrimental to the people residing along major oil mines. In Nigeria, for instance, Royal Dutch Shell initiated oil mining along the Niger Delta in the mid 20th century. Shell’s operations have led to mass environmental pollution, which is hazardous to the people residing along the delta to the company’s reckless disregard of environmental concerns. According to the United Nations Human Rights Watch, Shell has lobbied Nigerian politicians for the enactment of lax environmental laws in return for campaign contributions. As a result, efforts by environmentalists to campaign for the restoration of environmental stability has encountered significant obstacles including the execution of human rights activists such as Ken Saro Wiwa under the insurgent regime of Sani Abacha. The economic power of the oil industry has hindered environmental activism at the expense of the environment. This reiterates the concern to reduce the pervasive reliance on oil as the primary source of energy (World Bank, 2010). 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). Feasibility 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). Longevity 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. Statistics and projected findings indicate an unprecedented rise in the earth’s temperatures both in the planet’s atmosphere and in the seas (World Bank, 2010). This instability in the degree of temperature is retrospective of the intensity of greenhouse gas emission and industrial pollution, which is a threat to the ozone layer that shields the planet from the penetration of harmful radiation from the sun. Environmentalists agree that the shift from reliance on oil energy to alternative energy sources such as bio-fuels, solar energy and wind power would be a good start in the ongoing ‘going green’ campaign to salvage the environment. As discussed above, however, a section of scholars have questioned the feasibility of establishing a reliable alternative energy source. 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 subsequent 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 (Lohmann & Feichter, 2005). 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). Efforts by the ‘going green’ initiative to reduce human reliance on oil energy are underway. The automobile industry, for instance, has already begun manufacturing electric cars and hybrid electric vehicles that rely on alternative energy to power their engines. The Toyota Prius is an example of hybrid electric-powered vehicle. Likewise, numerous industries in South Korea have begun investing in alternative energy sources to show commitment to the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC (World Bank, 2010). Conclusion Recent surveys indicate a steady rise in human reliance on oil energy ranging from automobile in terms of petroleum products, industrial in which it is used to propel machines to domestic. Experts have cautioned the increased dependence on oil warning that the earth is at the brink of environmental collapse. Others have discredited these concerns as mere speculation. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, industrial pollution, which emanates from the industrial overreliance on oil energy, is the leading cause of atmospheric and environmental pollution. Likewise, UNEP estimates that the global industrial sector consumes an estimated 37 percent of world oil energy. Further research indicates that over half of carbon dioxide emission comes from industrial operations while 21 percent of CO2 emission comes from automobile pollution. Industrial operations yield a further 90 percentage of sulphur dioxide and other greenhouse emissions. This is quite a worrying trend and it calls for a reassessment of alternative energy sources in bid to minimize human dependence on oil. As debate ranges on, the most reasonable 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., & Feichter J. (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. World Bank. (2010). World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change. Washington DC, USA: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. Read More