There is a common mistake about “let’s just continue using fossil energy sources and geo-engineer our way out of global warming”. Alternative or renewable energy sources are indeed more costly, because building the infrastructure, windmills, solar parks, etc. is what we have to do from the ground up, whereas fossil energy is the thing we have already been investing in for ages. But there where’s no burning process, there’s no emission either. No need to tinker after the fact. In principle the electricity for constructing windmills etc. can come from renewable energy sources too. The deinvesting in the fossil industry is what vested interests object to — “why leave all that oil in the ground?” If it were the other way round, we would be thinking: “ Hell no, firstly we need to drill, get the oil from typically volatile regions, then we need to ship the oil out, process and refine it, finally we need to distribute it after which a complicated chemical process (burning) takes place in engines which are costly to maintain and are bad for people’ s health.

Written by

Identify how high-tech bypasses common sense to sell us a solution that frequently misses the point | country: Netherlands

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store