Something unique makes humans the prime species of the planet. It’s not our exceptional brain size, but our capacity to envision the future. This ability teaches us to think unlike other animals and sequentially triumph over them. And, yet, a limitation of this distinctive talent might also spell our downfall.

At a conference in Paris, world leaders are scratching their heads about how we can deal with the looming threat posed by global warming. Our energy-thirsty civilization is drinking fossil fuels at an unsustainable pace and we are soon to run out our carbon resources.

If we don’t act soon, harmful outcomes are prophesied, climbing sea levels, severe weather situations, easy-to-spread diseases and so on. However, Arnold Schwarzenegger makes it plain, despite our capacity to create a dystopia. Stuff that occurs in the future does not imply anything to people. It’s a limitation that could severely hamper a favorable result in Paris.

One way out may be to reframe the dispute. Global warming will affect billions of generations in time to come. However, by one calculation, our desire for fossil fuels may already be accountable for more mortality than those created by wars, murders, and traffic accidents combined.

These numbers come from the 2012 Climate Vulnerability Monitor. In 2010, some 4.5 million mortalities could be connected to air pollution, because of the production of carbon particles and nitrogen oxides. Another 500,000 losses that year could be associated with variations in our environment, which pointed to severe weather situations, flare-ups in communicable infections, and other harmful happenings.

Of course, things are only going to get worse. Although few people will realize what worse will seem like in the future. It’s much more beneficial to study how our fossil fuel usage is now affecting the planet and its citizens and act immediately.

Seven million people die each year global because of pollution-related diseases, that’s more than car accidents, more from suicides, and murders and wars, and all those things collectively, and we are assured that combating pollution involves severe regulations that will disable industry.

Politicians, they maintain that it’s too expensive to fix. Visualize, how stupid for a politician in Washington, to speak about too expensive, they like to waste money, and you know something else? Some politicians even want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) power to control carbon. This is complete garbage, it’s all false.

In California, they have proved that they can do both, preserve the environment and the economy at the same time. After California announced stringent climate change legislation, the state’s economy rose by 2.4%.

The most current efforts have been to recognize how the method of changing to 100% renewable power will impact society. Furthermore, we must not only study the dilemma of a power supply, but how to produce enough solar panels and wind turbines, and more at how we manage energy and how simple or complicated it will be to change to the food system, the transportation system, manufacturing, and so on, to using renewable energy. Of course, solar and the wind are direct sources of electricity so we will need to electrify as much of our energy usage as we can.

Furthermore, the construction of highways, which is a large slice of the infrastructure, is currently reliant on two materials that are difficult: one is concrete, and another is asphalt. Asphalt, of course, is made directly from fossil fuels, particularly low-grade oil. Furthermore concrete, its chief constituent is cement, which is created at extremely great temperatures, around 1500 degrees Celsius, in large ovens that are fired with fossil fuels, normally coal, sometimes natural gas.

If we’re simply imagining modernizing our infrastructure by replacing it with more of the same, then I believe we’re fastening personally into investments that actually don’t have much of a prospect. We’re going to have to consider what infrastructure makes sense in a forthcoming civilization that’s mostly controlled by renewable energy sources that may be limited, and that we’ll be utilizing resources probably much more efficiently, and then put money into it respectively.

Fossil fuels, which produce 85% of our popular power, experience from two deadly shortcomings. One of which is the reality that they create greenhouse gasses that are threatening the viability of our environment and hence our future of industrial society.

Another disadvantage of fossil fuels is evidence that these are wasting, non-renewable supplies. So, one way or another we will be shifting away from fossil fuels as time goes on, it’s really an issue of if we do it in a designed and fashioned way, or merely wait until we can no longer manage to extract the material that’s left.

There’s growing experience with combining greater levels of renewable power into grid systems. This greater level of practical knowledge is taking place in European nations, in the United States that have comparatively large levels of renewable penetration, comprising California.

However, there are still hurdles remaining.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s