New

Renewable energies - Use of renewable energies

Renewable energies - Use of renewable energies


Climate change requires cutting emissions and adopting ethical choices

Nazzareno Gottardi

International Conference "CHOOSE RENEWABLE", Montecatini April 16-18, 2010

Pages 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

1. Introduction

Here I am again at this Ecomobility appointment to bring my modest contribution to the movement for the promotion of the use of renewable energy, to stop the process of degradation of the planet and find the final solution for the energy needs of humanity.

It will not be a highly technical seminar; rather it will be an outlet against a group of a few who continue to destroy our environment by burning fossil fuel and against the indifference with which most of humanity turns to renewable.

It is not the case here to indulge in many philosophical and humanistic considerations but I allow myself once again to make a small, small one:

Energy is the foundation of our universe and we exist because of it. Life is developed thanks to the action of energy on matter. Energy is life.

  • In particular, on this planet, life has been generated by the energy sent to us by our Sun which, by feeding the evolutionary transformations, has also allowed the development of Humanity.
  • I also like to think, poetically but very little scientifically, that By working patiently for many hundreds of millions of years on other forms of organic life, he has prepared an enormous wealth of very precious resources, such as oil.
  • He prepared them to facilitate the technological development of man when he became mature enough to use them wisely together with his abundant direct maradiation: solar energy precisely.
  • With it Brother Sun is willing to feed us and provide us with noble forms of energy, such as eg. the electrical and the mechanical ones, for a few billion more years as long as we know how to use intelligently and sparingly the other natural resources that it has given us.
  • The poetic vision ends abruptly because we know that certain members of humanity think that the solar energy to use is precisely the fossilized one and that, just as happened, it is an excellent source of wealth and power and ..... that the rest of the mondosi arrangi, if ..... and how can.

Normally in the past I have turned to the exploiters of fossil energy congentility trying to convince them that direct or deferred solar energy in the form of wind or water is the primary solution to the energy problem of humanity.

Now I think we must tell these people frankly that their good faith can no longer be believed: they know very well that renewable energy is great, it is a lot, and it is simply everything and only what humanity needs for a happy life for each of its members, without discrimination of gender, race or religious belief.

Someone will say: "not all resources", only energy resources. No: all resources including oil which is not an energy resource. Due to its versatility it is in fact the most precious of the raw materials available to humanity. they are natural heritages, minerals, metals, fertile lands, forests, faunal heritage, etc. Its appropriation and annihilation as a simple fuel is a crime against humanity.

I used the word "moral", almost a taboo in our age of selfishness and unbridled hedonism and the abuse of religions by certain disruptive elements of social structures to protect the material interests of groups such as those of the energy cartel. fossil.

Having touched on this taboo I must therefore, in order not to scare those who are disappointed by non-believing religions and who no longer like to hear about ethics, morals, duties, etc. I will give here the definition of "morality" that I normally use in this type of seminars. It is a definition that should be suitable for all those who, be they religious, agnostic or atheist, believe in Humanity and its future development:

"Any action taken in the interest of the Human Community is moral. Any action carried out in the interest of individuals or groups of individuals to the detriment of the welfare of humanity is immoral ".

In the light of this "postulate" we can say that the waste of a precious raw material such as oil as a source of energy is immoral.

And it is certainly even more immoral due to the fact that, while it is increasingly evident that there is an enormous availability of clean energy, the thermal and chemical pollution of the environment continues, even if it is, through the reckless use of fossil energy.

It is immoral because the consequences of this action fall on the whole of humanity while the benefit is destined for a few political-financial power groups.

Despite this very negative premise and other similar considerations that I will present in the following, I predict that I will end with a thread of optimism by showing that, thanks to the action of pioneers of renewable energy, there are clear signs of a promising future even if still distant.

A clarification: although here, speaking of emissions, I will emphasize greenhouse gases, it is clear that the moral duty to avoid or reduce emissions extends to everything that "is emitted" during industrial processes, therefore including all chemicals and nuclear power that pollute the environment in which we live.

I would also like to point out that, although by spontaneous inclination I speak often of solar and wind energy, my consideration also applies to every form of renewable energy: geothermal, water, tidal, wave, etc.

2. "The situation is serious"

Who says that? The Secretary General of the United Nations, in his speech at the Third World Climate Conference in Geneva. He then warned the international community: "We are heading towards the abyss at high speed". Ban Ki Moon pointed out that “We cannot afford the luxury of limited progress. We need rapid progress to face the new problems that are attributable to climate change ”.1

Finally we begin to accept that the cry of many scientists is not a catastrophist attitude but a reality. The continuous organization of international meetings, such as the one that led to the Kyoto Protocol, and which showed the interest and participation in their conclusions of almost all the nations of the world, confirms this new attitude. Even the latest meeting in chronological order, the one in Copenhagen, although at first glance it seemed a failure, showed how climate is becoming a universal concern. It was in Copenhagen that rich and poor sat at the same table and as many as 90 of them presented the promise to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (hereinafter briefly referred to as GHG by the English Greenhouse Gases). that of the United States where the oil and industry lobby is holding back the praiseworthy initiatives of this government.

But even among the extremists, despite the vehemence of their media campaigns towards renewable energy, it seems that an awareness is on the way.

Note that the following statement comes from the IEA (International Energy Agency) and the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) "3:" The energy prospects of today's world are simply unsustainable. Despite all the talk about climate change, demand for energy has continued to rise in recent years and with it global CO2 emissions At the same time, importing countries are increasingly concerned about their energy security just as oil, gas and coal prices hit record highs. ".

If the IEA, which I have always suspected of being a fossil energy lobby, makes such a statement it is because the situation is really serious.

Another indirect confirmation that the situation is serious comes from the fossil cartels: while they continue a huge disinformation propaganda against environmentalists and against renewable to maintain the use of their energy sources, they have set to work with conviction to capture and CO2 sequestration. They do this even though they know that this leads to an increase in their production costs.

Their propaganda against the theory of global warming due to greenhouse gases, however, does not stop despite the evidence of the phenomenon. They take advantage of every occasion to discredit it. For example, they play on the misunderstanding and rely on the fact that the mass of laymen find it hard to see beyond a short-term phenomenon (such as the recent period of intense cold) the real long-term situation (average global warming increasingly measurable ). Their tactics are subtle and once they have found a foothold they turn it into a crusade.

Last summer, for example, Professor Mojib Latif, a very important collaborator of the IPCC (Intergovernamental Panel on Climate Change ), in a symposium on climate damage4 announced that, although global warming of the climate continues to increase due to anthropogenic causes in an evident manner, periods in which the temperature may also decrease due to periodic climatic phenomena cannot be excluded. In particular, he cited as an example that of the ten-year oscillation of the North Atlantic and showed the transparency in figure 1.

The expression "drop in temperature" so excited the detractors of climate warming that they immediately unleashed a huge press campaign on the supposedly lied to by the IPCC. The thing ended however soon: in their excitement they had not tried to look carefully at the graph mentioned, where the mediasal temperature inexorably rises.

The reaction was even more dramatic when a claim about the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers by 2035 inadvertently slipped into the 2007 IPCC report without being scrutinized. In fact, there are still no systematic studies on the true extent of the retreat of these glaciers in relation to global warming.

Ghaham Cogley of Ontario's Trent University. For example, he says the correct number should be 350 years while others, such as Swiss glaciologist Michael Zemp of the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, simply say that he doesn't seem to have seen a report confirming the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers before the end. of this century5.

The accusation of "cheating" attributed to this oversight went around the world in media controlled by the fossil cartels, generating a series of doubts about the veracity of all the content of the meticulous work of the IPCC, confusing the true meaning of the message.

How many have realized that if the glaciers of the Himalayas, which have been nesting there for two million years, should really disappear, if not in tens but also in a few hundred years, it would be in itself the true confirmation of the catastrophe?

How can these media outlets emphasize this kind of errors, which if anything push humanity towards environmental protection, when they themselves ignored the "error" of the existence of weapons of mass destruction that justified the war of 'Iraq with the aftermath of death and destruction that we all know today? Unless you want to see oil as the weapon of mass destruction ... considering the global effects on the whole environment in which we live.

I cannot dwell here on the series of false accusations such as, for example, those linked to the malign interpretation of scientific jargon expressed in emails stolen from a British meteorological research center. I'm just saying it's sad to see the immoral use of the media, the most efficient power tool of our information age, to gain a grip on the general public.

Pages 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

Note

  1. "The world towards the abyss http": //www.rainews24.it/it/news.php? Newsid = 130869; 03. 09. 2009
  2. International Herald Tribune. February 23, 2010
  3. Energy Technology Perspectives 2008; Scenarios & Strategies to 2050. In support of the G8 Plan of Action. OECD / IEA, Paris, France; 2008
  4. Mojib Latif: “Advancing Climate Prediction Science - Decadal Prediction”; WorlClimate Conference WCC-3, Geneva, 31 Aug-4 Sep 2009
  5. Pallava Bagla in Delhi: “Himalayan Glaciers melting dead line" a mistake "”. BBC News. 5 December 2009

Video: ElonMusk - Thoughts on transitioning to 100% renewable energy