Hello Friends,

In the next set of articles we will be taking a look at one of the most interesting and heavily contested debates related to the environment. The debate surrounding energy is one which is almost as old as the concerns regarding the environment. To date, human energy consumption has largely depended on non-renewable fossil fuel based sources. As the human demand for energy constantly increases, there is a heavy debate regarding the source we utilize to meet this increasing demand.

It is very important to note that this topic which is very complex. There are many factors which have to be considered for each proposed fuel source for the future and as of now it is safe to say that perhaps there is no one fuel source which by itself can sustain humanity in the decades and centuries to come. With non-renewable, fossil fuel based sources, there are the risks of simply running out in the centuries to come as well as the resultant environmental damage that we are already beginning to see globally. However, it would be a mistake to ignore the pros associated with fossil fuels as well. For over a century, fossil fuels have sustained humanity, have allowed us to revolutionize our technology and lifestyles. The oil and natural gas sectors are major economic drivers in many regions of the world – employing many thousands of people worldwide. Furthermore, extraction techniques such as hydraulic fracturing have increased the expectancy of oil and natural gas for the decades to come. There is also the fact that alternative fuel sources can simply not meet the energy demands of countries in a practical fashion. Therefore, one side of the debate is made clear – humanity is in no position to simply ?abandon? fossil fuels.

This side of the debate is one which is often times discredited as being greedy, economically driven, and overly conservative. However, if we just stick within the boundaries of the energy debate then it becomes clear that there are some truthful points which we must address and learn from. Firstly, we must consider that the energy demand within a region is based upon a few factors: population, demography and economic drivers. As the global population increases, the energy demand is bound to increase. There is also the fact that a large portion of the world?s population is concentrated within the ?developing nations?. As these nations experience economic growth, both their populations and industries will experience increased energy demand. In these parts of the world, it has to be noted that alternative energy sources may not be the most practical due to the high overhead costs. Furthermore, there is often an argument concerning the use of money in these parts of the world. Often times, there is a question raised whether limited public utilities and infrastructure funds should be used for other projects such as transportation, roads and buildings. Though these questions often times have little to no ?right answers?, decisions have to be made. There is also the undeniable fact that energy is required for a good life. Hospitals, banks, transport systems, militaries and governments have come to run on energy. There are still parts of the world where reliable energy is not a reality. In these places, it is very important to have a reliable source of energy which can meet the peoples need – something which alternative forms cannot do sufficiently as is suggested by fossil fuel proponents. Though some of these arguments can be contested, it is important to learn from both sides of the debate and simply not discredit one side.

Moving on to the other side of the fence, we see that there is the ultimate yet eventual reality of pipelines running dry and widespread human induced environmental disasters. However, this side is also often discredited as many people seem to prioritize the status quo over the eventual outcome. Fossil fuels not only release CO2 however also other by products which are harmful. For example, let?s talk about cars. The combustion of fuel in a car engine released NO2, CO as well as O3. However, the catalytic converter came and saved the day – at least for a while. The catalytic converter turned CO into CO2 and NO2 to N2 and O2. However recent environmental concerns that have surfaced with catalytic converters in the status quo have again raised a difficult question regarding their use. These questions have to be answered by the scientists of today and the youth – who will become the leaders of tomorrow. Furthermore, as far as the ?promising? extraction technique of hydraulic fracturing goes there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the harms go beyond environmental. Fracking has been reported to have contaminated groundwater sources and produce unsafe drinking water in wells – one case by the EPA reporting such high levels of CH4 in a well in a Texas home near a fracking site that the water had started to ?bubble?. Furthermore, evidence links fracking with earthquake activity as well. Not to mention the huge quantities of water which are used in a fracking operation fracking uses large volumes of water which cannot be reused due to the other chemicals which mixed with it in the fracturing fluid – however this fluid can go on to contaminate other water sources. This raises an important issue regarding water management, especially in regions of the US where water is already scarce. All in all, this side of the debate banks on the fact that the future is uncertain and the addiction to fossil fuels can be one which can be extremely costly for humanity.

As true as both sides of the debate are, there are missing pieces in both lines of argumentation. While the pro fossil fuel side seemingly brushes environmental concerns under the carpet stating that there are no alternatives which can replace fossil fuels, they seem to ignore the fact that fossil fuels and alternatives can coexist – both reducing the environmental damage and still providing sufficient energy. Such diversification of the energy sector is something which we will analyse closely in articles to come. However, the anti-fossil fuel side also misses the point regarding the fact that in the status quo, the world is simply not in a position to abandon this fuel source. Ultimately, there has to be a balance – a compromise between both sides which will yield the best solution. As is the case with most things the best solutions comes not from relentless argumentation but rather from listening and unity.

Meanwhile, I would really like to hear your thoughts and opinions in this debate. There are points for both sides which I could not cover because this debate is one which is so vast that simply one article cannot cover everything. However, please feel free to comment and discuss your thoughts as we are the generation who will have to make these decisions – we are the ones who will have to take the weight of this responsibility upon our shoulders.

photo credits: colemanoilandgas.com