Energy, our lifeline
There have been concerns on the source of energy that fuels our economy and lifestyle which generates CO2 much more than nature can handle. Over the past few decades, a number of positive steps have been taken by countries by sourcing energy from renewable sources to help reduce emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs), especially CO2.
In 1960, two years after global warming was highlighted as a crisis, the world consumed 41,841 terawatt hours (twh) of energy of which only 4.5% was generated by hydropower, the only renewable source at that time. In 1995 when the first COP conference was held the world consumed 112,517 twh energy with 12.4% coming from renewable sources which includes nuclear, wind, solar and biofuel in addition to hydropower. In 2024 the world consumed 186,383 twh of energy with 17.6% generated by renewable sources. As we note between 1960 and 2024 the energy consumption increased by 4.5 folds. There was also an increase in energy production from renewable sources but not sufficient to make a dent in reducing GHGs emission as the absolute amount of GHGs production continued on a linear scale. One kilowatt hour of energy deposits 2.7 million grams of CO2 in the atmosphere (one billion kilowatt is one terawatt). In 2024 the world consumed 153,532 twh of energy out of a total of 186,383 twh was from non-renewable sources, the main source of GHGs emission. The math is clear; the trend of GHG emission shall remain on an upward trajectory.Riding against the tide
Thousands of scientific studies conducted by hundreds of scientists have concluded time and again that the deposit of GHGs in the atmosphere is the result of excessive burning of fossil fuels. It resulted in global warming and warming of the ocean and many other negative climatic events such as desertification and unseasonal floods. But about three percent of studies sponsored directly or indirectly by fossil fuel industries continue to suppress the idea of a climate crisis suggesting that climate change is a natural phenomenon that happens every few millennia and cannot be prevented. They also believe that 'Individuals can't solve the climate crisis; calling for greater individual responsibility actually is detrimental to the cause', says Anders Levermann. 'Individual behaviour change isn't actions - it is distraction; it shifts the blame from the actual causes of climate change to fake ones, and shifts attention away from meaningful action to meaningless psychological ones' says Jay Michaelson, another 'environmentalist'. Yet, another 'environmentalist', Martin Lukacs writes 'the emphasis on smaller personal actions can actually undermine support for the substantive policies needed'. These negative messages are a distraction for ordinary people.
There are regular demonstrations against fossil fuel industries during every COP convention demanding to reduce or even ban fossil fuel production. But it is an unrealistic proposition as there are no instant alternatives to fulfil total energy needs. People must realise that decreased production of fossil fuel will lead to increase in market price & cost of living which will not favour the majority of the people. In addition, the technology for extracting fossil fuel and natural gas industries have been well established. New technology requires huge investments and returns will be seen only in the distant future which is not an attractive investment for investors. As energy is the lifeline of our economy and our lifestyle with 24/7 dependency there has to be other complementary solutions.
What about Citizen's role
While the world waits for a sizable increase in energy from renewable sources there is a need to examine the role of the consumers to manage emission of GHGs. Citizens everywhere can contribute in their own way but it needs a clear message for people to understand their roles. Over the decades climate enthusiasts have coined many new concepts such as Carbon neutral, Carbon footprints, Carbon tax, Carbon credit, Climate emergency, Climate justice, Climate action, Climate conversation, Green commute, Circular economy, Green energy, Zero emission, etc. These gobble de gook terminologies, which many people would find hard to understand is unlikely to encourage average citizens to act. There should be just a few practical messages which people can personalise to engage and can act on.
Replacing fossil fuel-based vehicles with electric vehicles is a good start and could expand further subject to affordable retail prices. There are about 2 bn motor vehicles in the world of which about 58 million are electric. There is also expansion of conduction stoves replacing gas stoves, which consumes less energy in addition to reducing GHG emission. The recycling has been in the air for a long time but has not caught up because of the high cost of recycling.
A noticeable dent in reducing GHGs production could be achieved by changing consumer behaviour which unfortunately is at odds with modern marketing practices. Our consumer-based national economy has imprisoned people in a paradise of a marketer's world. The idea is to consume as much as you can. Our consumer-based economy exists to make our life comfortable by offering numerous choices. There are fashion houses pushing people to the edges to change our shoes, jackets, clothes, watches, TVs, household appliances and personal apparels every new season every year - buy one get one free! There are even expiry dates in helmets and children's car seats. Why? It is possible that certain movable parts might come loose with wear and tear but the owners know when it happens and will change to avoid any risk. I have seen people who take these expiry dates religiously and buy new products. In some cases, these are even related to insurance! A clear collusion of scammers!
Intentional choices
The TV sitcoms, movies and magazines bring us close to celebrities in our homes. Our world is glamorised by celebrities who have become the spokespersons of marketeers. People envy and look up to them as role models on how to dress, where to eat, where to go for vacation and endless ways of fulfilling people's dreams, looking up to their idols. This dream is further amplified by the idea of individualism 'you can be what you want to be', by ignoring the resources required. Such consumer culture is destabilising people's mental state while chasing illusive success, glamour, and fame. Based on their dreams many people change their mobile devices every time there is a new model and change cars every five years promoted by their idol such as David Beckham or sip espresso coffee as sipped by George Clooney. There are people who fully depend on bottled water glamorised by celebrities representing parent companies such as Nestle, Evian, etc., although tap water is equally safe. Beger paint (India) advertises that it prevents viruses! How could this be even allowed? Consumer citizens have been fooled for a very long time.
There are technocrats like billionaire Bill Gates who believe that technology will solve all problems. People are reluctant to say no to such ideas. If and when such a technology would be available globally it may be too late to rescue us from a total environmental collapse. We simply cannot rely on technology or the Almighty to rescue us from complete oblivion …
People can collectively contribute in limiting GHGs emission by changing our lifestyle by recognising our need vs want. We have to stop being part of this unchecked consumerism. For as long as we continue to live and love our way of life marketed by industries there is little hope for any significant change in GHG emission. People must decide what adds value to life. We need to get rid of ideas of wanting things that just have window dressing values. Every decision we make to eat, drink, wear, travel, etc. has a cost to the environment in the form of GHG emission. Everything we do has a monetary cost and time but changing our consumer behaviour does not cost money. The money and time we spent on wasteful activity is a loss of opportunity for something more beneficial. People must make intentional choices on a daily basis to review our material needs and possessions. We have to stop being part of this unchecked consumer world. The coalition of ordinary citizens, which runs into billions, could contribute to reducing GHG emission. It needs everyone's conscious decision. Ready?
Read more articles by Ramesh here.
Or contact Ramesh at ramesh.chauni@gmail.com
Labels Ramesh
Thank you, Ramesh. But I find myself arriving at a rather different conclusion.
ReplyDeleteIf we look at the history of major global challenges, they were not solved by voluntary reductions in living standards. Human progress has consistently come from technological breakthroughs that allowed us to improve living standards.
Not so long ago, we were assured that population growth would condemn the world to mass starvation. The Green Revolution, with new crop varieties, fertilisers, and irrigation, solved a problem that moralising never could. The same was true for the Luddites. They feared mechanisation would destroy livelihoods. Instead, technology made societies richer and raised productivity.
Climate change, in my view, falls into the same category. It is difficult to imagine that hundreds of millions of people in India or Indonesia, rightly tasting the fruits of development at long last, will voluntarily give up flying, air-conditioning, a scooter, or a better diet. This is not moral weakness; it is the normal human desire for a better life.
The only path consistent with both climate goals and global development is a massive technological shift in how we produce energy. Fortunately, the potential for such a shift is enormous. Both solar and wind energy are becoming less expensive. New-generation nuclear has become dramatically safer, cheaper, and more modular. Fusion, long dismissed as distant, now has credible industrial momentum. Advanced geothermal, using deep-drilling techniques borrowed from the oil industry, could provide baseload power almost anywhere in the world. And yes, reforestation at scale remains a good form of carbon capture, helped, ironically, by the CO₂ fertilisation effect that makes trees grow faster.
This trajectory mirrors past human achievements: innovation solves the problems, not moralising. If we want to reduce global emissions while maintaining political legitimacy and human dignity, the priority should be accelerating the development and deployment of the next generation of clean energy technologies. That is where the real leverage lies.
Changing consumption patterns may make us feel virtuous, but changing the energy system will actually make a difference.
Thanks for your comments, which I fully agree with. I was not suggesting lowering the living standard, which no one will agree with. My suggestion was to limit excessive consumption which would limit GHG emission. Indeed, there are good examples of different phases of development from green revolution to industrial revolution and we just arrived at the revolution in cyber technology which is changing every aspect of our life and living.
DeleteSolar and wind generated power is catching up but the size of storage batteries required are a kind of a problem in itself due to short shelf life and tremendous amount of incombustible waste (wind blades and solar cells just about 25 years). Nuclear energy yes, becoming cheaper but given our geopolitics a lot of countries will never be allowed to develop nuclear energy.
The most promising ongoing technology is on carbon capture during stages of fossil fuel combustion. At least a dozen countries are experimenting and hopefully a technology that could be adopted on a wide scale will come by soon. Since it is not an income generating scheme initial funding must come from the government. Once its practicality and efficiency have been demonstrated the technology could be sold to industries. But until then I still believe that citizens can contribute to GHG in reduction without sacrificing their living standard and comfort.
These are the first few paragraphs of a recent article by Bill Gates on climate change.
ReplyDelete"There’s a doomsday view of climate change that goes like this:
In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization. The evidence is all around us—just look at all the heat waves and storms caused by rising global temperatures. Nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature.
Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong. Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.
Unfortunately, the doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world."
History offers a powerful antidote to doomsday thinking. Time and again, humanity has been warned that catastrophe was inevitable. Population growth would outstrip food supply, resources would be exhausted, and living standards would collapse. But all those predictions have been confounded by innovation.
ReplyDeleteFrom the agricultural breakthroughs of the Green Revolution to successive industrial revolutions, technological progress has consistently increased productivity, reduced resource intensity, and expanded human possibilities. The world now produces more food, energy, and wealth using fewer inputs per unit than at any point in history. The lesson is not that challenges were imaginary, but that human ingenuity proved more powerful than pessimism.
Why, then, should climate change be the first global problem to which this pattern does not apply? If anything, the world is far better positioned today than it has ever been. There is vastly more scientific knowledge, capital, computing power, and incentives to innovate. Never before has humanity mobilised so much brainpower so quickly in response to a single challenge.
There is even a delicious irony here. The very technologies often portrayed as energy villains, like data centres and AI, may become the accelerators of a new clean-energy revolution. Power-hungry AI is already driving breakthroughs in battery chemistry, grid optimisation, materials science, and fusion research. Demand, after all, is one of the most reliable engines of innovation.
None of this implies complacency. Climate change is a serious problem. But history strongly suggests that the solution will not come from self-denial and economic contraction, but from the same force that has repeatedly carried humanity through past crises: technology, ingenuity, and growth.
Ramesh I agree with TE’s final comment “that the same forces that has repeatedly carried humanity through past crises” could provide the answers to the challenges including climate change. Once nuclear fusion and quantum computing is achieved…almost everything we currently know will be vastly enhanced.
ReplyDelete