Today and Tomorrow - Greenhouse Gases - Our Life Style : Ramesh Shrestha

The governments will not be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is the people who can do this by taming their consumption behaviour and minimising energy use.

This is us

Major sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) are transportation, electricity generation, industries and agriculture, all of which are meant for our day to day survival and comfort. But the consumption of energy is extremely skewed when we examine this  on a per capita basis. Most South Asian, African and several Latin American countries consume less than 1500 kwh (kilo-watt-hour) of energy per person per year. Fifty-two developing countries consume less than 500 kwh per person per year. The top ten countries (excluding Iceland and Norway as their energy production has a near zero GHG emission) energy consumption range between 10,000 to 12,000 kwh per person per year. All developing countries and several mid-income countries are already at the rock bottom when ranked by per capita consumption. It is up to the citizens of the world to realise that it is the people who can reduce greenhouse gas emission by taming their consumption pattern, not the government!

Government commitments

All governments are ‘committed’ to reducing GHG by a certain date, including achieving zero-emission(!) by some countries. Deadlines set in the past have been pushed several times. Making commitments has simply become a political game. Only Iceland and Norway with adequate geothermal energy and hydropower plants have achieved a near zero-emission status and may continue to maintain this status with their reserve of geothermal energy. For the rest of the world reducing GHG will remain a struggle as reducing energy supply directly impacts on the economy through reduced industrial outputs that have direct bearings on people’s income and lifestyle.

A sudden reduction in energy production (& supply) would be a political suicide for any government. In addition, we will have an additional two billion new borne by the end of 2050. Hence, hoping for governments to reduce GHG emission is an unflawed illusion. On the contrary GHG emission has actually increased in several countries despite commitments made decades ago and is likely to increase in coming years.

Limitations of safe alternative sources

The most popular and safe sources of zero emission energy are based on wind, solar and tidal energy. Work on these sources are in progress in several OECD countries and some mid-income countries. These renewable sources are not without challenges. Tapping energy from these sources requires huge storage batteries prior to connecting with national grids. Construction of these storage batteries require large amounts of rare earth minerals such as lithium, cobalt, etc. Extracting and processing of these minerals produces vast amounts of chemical waste – gases and contaminated waste water - which pollutes air, rivers and oceans. Similarly, components of solar cells and blades of wind turbines have a shelf life of 20 to 30 years only. At the end of this period all these materials end up in landfills and will remain there for thousands of years. Wind, sunlight and tidal waves are components of nature and there is no guarantee for their uninterrupted availability either!

There are also works on hydrogen fuel cells. But all such research to be viable for commercial scale requires decades of wait time. According to global statistics (Statista) China, USA, Brazil, India and Germany are among the top five countries in production of renewable energy. However, three of these five countries, except Brazil and Germany, are also the largest producers of fossil fuel-based energy in the world.

What next?

People are used to a certain level of comfort and may find it difficult to adjust to a new way of life with less energy but in order to avoid further climatic disasters it is essential to adjust energy consumption; there is no other way out. These could include optimising energy use, avoiding wastage, installing appliances which use natural gas instead of electricity, review needs vs want to avoid unnecessary purchases, etc. The idea is to slow down the energy use in the industries and reduce consumption. These are not new ideas; it is just a restatement of facts known to everyone for a long time but very few are willing to act. We need serious actions to preserve the environment for future generations. We are on a suicidal path. There are no technical solutions to our consumption habits. The solution is to optimise/minimise our consumption.

Be prepared

In 2021 the number of days exceeding 50 degree Celsius was 26 days compared to an average of 14 days between 1980 and 2009. Failing to adjust our lifestyle downward scale, that is if we continue to do what we are doing – unlimited consumption, wastage, big industries, big buildings, actually more and big of everything - we will be experiencing many more days of extreme heat, intense forest fires, unseasonal heavy rains causing havocs, desertification and so on. Amen!

Internal conflict

Climate conscious citizens have been demonstrating in major cities asking their governments to give up on fossil fuels to reduce emission of greenhouse gases in recent years. What people do not seem to realise or do not want to understand is that no government can switch off fossil fuel-based power plants without a safe alternative. Should a government decide to switch off a power plant, which will reduce energy supply it will be the same people who will complain that there is shortage of energy and they cannot run their air conditioners, lights in the house, cannot use household appliances, etc. Further, people may start to use generators which will deceive the entire purpose.

There are no quick fixes to switch to zero-emission based energy. It takes years to complete hydropower plants. Besides, hydropower plants may not be suitable in lowland and arid countries, of which there are many. Similarly, it takes decades to build nuclear power plants and is very expensive. For both options there will be oppositions by the environmentalists. Large hydropower plants will be opposed as it is likely to submerge natural habitats, displace populations and cause floods, etc. Nuclear power plants will be opposed due to dangers of nuclear waste with radiation risk for centuries. In addition, some countries may see dangers of nuclear fuels being used for purposes other than generating energy.

What to do then?

It is up to the citizens of the world to realise that it is the people who can reduce greenhouse gas emission by taming their consumption pattern, not the government!