Do we need fossil fuels?

I have watched a number of documentaries on energy and climate change and have heard lots of interesting information and lots of conflicting information. I will now put on my accountant hat and approach this from a purchasing decision framework.

First question: Do we need to change from fossil fuels to another energy source? The answer is overwhelmingly yes. Fossil fuels are a limited resource and will run out one day. There will be a changeover period, and so we cannot leave it to the last minute to make the change – we need to plan ahead.

Second question: When? There are two considerations in this question. One is determining what is available to replace the fossil fuels and the other is determining the cost of delay.

The cost of delay will influence our willingness to accept a less than perfect alternative.

If there was no cost of delay and a better product was available now, we would change over immediately. If the alternate product was equivalent to fossil fuels, we would transition at a pace that suited all the stakeholders best. If the alternative is worse, we would delay the changeover until a better product was available.

So the cost of delay determines what sacrifices we are prepared to make.

This is where the science comes in. The scientists have been doing studies since the middle of last century on climate change and monitoring the factors that are involved. So the research is there to let us know exactly what we are facing and the urgency required to prevent negative consequences. The delays to date have allowed some of those negative consequences to become reality. Yes, the scientific reports are varied and we can assume there is bias, so we can’t take any at face value. The IPCC reports are one source but they have limitations as they only print what everyone agrees on. The situation could actually be worse than what they report.

But in the circumstances of conflict of advice, we look at what margin of error we can allow.

The worst case scenario is that the planet becomes uninhabitable. There seems to be a consensus on this, even though the cause is being argued. But lets assume that we are avoiding a "loss of planet" event.

Will the planet be fine until it suddenly ends, or will it gradually become less inhabitable until it becomes totally uninhabitable?

It is the latter, so we need to act earlier rather than later. The longer we delay, the worse the living conditions we will pass onto future generations.

So now we have our mission. We need to change from fossil fuels to an alternative energy source. And we need to minimise the impact on the planet from climate change.

This looks simple, but it is not that simple. The crux of the argument from the fossil fuel companies is that the two issues are not related. Of course, they have an interest in delaying the cessation of the use of fossil fuels.

• We know that burning fossil fuels creates greenhouse gases.

• We know that greenhouse gases cause the breaking down of the ozone layer.

• We know that this allows more energy from the sun to reach our planet.

• We know that the sun is hot and therefore a heater.

• We know that the frozen places on the planet are defrosting.

• We know that they will not freeze again but will defrost faster as it gets warmer.

• We know that this is increasing the ocean levels.

• We know that 50% of the population of the earth live near the ocean and that many of these have a very low tolerance of ocean levels rising.

• We know that this will mean large populations becoming refugees, losing their homes and livelihoods and needing somewhere else to live.

So do we want to stop the frozen parts of the planet from melting? Yes.

Is that enough knowledge to eliminate fossil fuels yet?

Okay, let’s keep going then.

• We know that higher temperatures are not compatible with humans as we have a limited temperature range in which we can live.

• We know that heat waves increase the need for electricity, cause deaths of the old, young and infirm and reduce the ability to work.

• We know that hot climates have less water and are less fertile and often result in famines and desert.

• We know that the drying out of the earth leads to loss of trees, drinking water and causes erosion.

• We know that the increase in ocean temperatures destroys the reefs.

So do we want to keep the temperature down? Absolutely.

Maybe the planet is heating up naturally. But why add an extra factor that heats it up faster?

Are the benefits of using fossil fuels overriding the cost of climate change? Absolutely NOT!

So what is our action plan?

1. We need to replace fossil fuels and it is time sensitive. The sooner the better.

2. We also need to counteract the damage done to date, and the expected future damage, with mitigation strategies.

Lets address the purchasing question first. What do we want to replace fossil fuels with?

The current options are solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal and biomass.

Solar – the sun is getting hotter so this looks good. The production process is not very environmentally friendly though, and it only has a shelf life of approximately 10 years before it needs replacing. It also needs to come with a battery or it cannot provide a reliable source of energy.

Wind – similar to solar with the negatives. A lot of concrete goes into those things, and they have a limited life. Also need a battery.

Nuclear – great until you have an accident. And then there is the waste. Mmmmm are we replacing one disaster with another?

Geothermal – well the planet is heating up, so this has potential. But not available everywhere.

Hydroelectric – great if you have lots of water. But as we heat, we lose our fresh water source of the glaciers. Is there some way of aligning floods, rising oceans, and water storage with hydroelectric? This has lots of potential for engineers to work with. But it also takes years to put in place, so we need to get going now if we take this path.

Tidal – the oceans are having a hard enough time now with levels rising, depletion of fish and being our dumping ground. Perhaps we should leave them alone for a while before we do more there. But maybe it has a long term potential.

Biomass – no, no, no. We are already depleting the land growing corn and soy for animals and all the other uses. Lets not add another reason to strip our forests.

So as an accountant, I would consider a short term option and a long term option. For the next 10 years I would focus on what we know and is ready to go. This would be Solar and Wind with batteries. I realise that these are not ideal solutions, and definitely not long term, but they are better than heating up the planet with fossil fuels. Yes, fossil fuels will need to continue for a couple of years while we transition, but the majority of the transition needs to be by 2025 with the balance by 2030 at the latest.

The long term plan would be other options. Hydroelectric has lots of potential if used in conjunction with collecting rain to prevent flooding, storage of this rain for water supplies and regeneration of surrounding and downstream habitats.

Geothermal sounds like a great option for the areas that can harvest this. It could also have some potential in preventing earthquakes and volcanoes. If disruption to the earth is caused by heating up the core, then releasing that heat could ease the stress on the earth’s mantle perhaps?

There will be new technologies discovered in the next ten years and these may be more efficient and effective. But for now, we need to act with what we have because the cost of not acting is too high and will only get worse with delays.

So, the purchasing recommendation is to stop any new fossil fuel development, wind down the current ones as fast as we can replace them, and wind up the use of available alternative energy sources. Once this decision is made, it needs to be total commitment globally and full speed ahead.

There are a lot of very smart people waiting to find the best solutions of how to implement this. But the implementation needs to be staged.

In the next two years, replace as much energy as possible with solar and wind assuming it is a 10 year solution.

In two years, close the majority of fossil fuel energy supplies.

At the same time, start the planning and development of hydroelectric and geothermal plants.

And get the scientists working hard on a new energy source that is better than all the alternatives. They have 10 years to develop it and make it affordable.

This is a global purchasing plan. That means that all countries collaborate, share and use their combined purchasing power to make the implementation as cost effective as possible for everyone. The outcome is that all communities have access to energy for their daily lives, and this improves the quality of life for everyone, especially those that have been neglected to date.

Now the second part of this mission is the mitigation of the damage done so far and expected in the future. It seems that carbon is our enemy, but plants love it.

So reforestation looks like the number one project on the globe. Trees love carbon, but they also stop erosion. They provide cover for the plants and animals below, so they are excellent for restoring habitats. They also trap water and did you know that they release particles into the air to create rain when they are thirsty? They are so clever. We have never fully appreciated the value of trees and they are our friends, especially when we need shade in the rising temperatures. Yes, adopt a tree, hug a tree, make a tree your pet.

Land restoration is critical to providing livable areas for the refugees. But they also need water. Our water tables have been depleted and many areas have lost their water altogether with the droughts and famines. China had this problem and reversed it by putting in water buffers. When the land depletes, the water runs straight downhill and is lost into the ocean. But if the runoff curves, the bends become catchments for the water, allowing it to soak into the ground and form ponds, which become rivers, which become waterfalls. Yes, there is a video on this in the resources, so watch this and you will understand.

Production of food is one of the biggest causes of deforestation. Farmers have traditionally cleared land to grow crops and graze animals. The amazon is an example of where forests are being destroyed for this purpose. The secondary problem is the use of fossil fuels for the production process and transport of foods to markets. Production can be the growing of the food through to the storage, and processing of the food until it ends up on the supermarket shelf. There is a lot of energy used to convert healthy food into unhealthy food for consumption in global locations. And the mass production of food is also not the healthiest as many chemicals are used to enhance the profits.

Every town or city can grow its own fresh produce organically in community farms. Town planning can build in the regeneration of land around the town with organic farms, worm farms, mulch farms. We can even add these into the building code allowing people to be more self-sustainable in suburbia by supporting them with the training and resources they need.

The council can encourage recycling through collection bins, including food waste bins which go to the mulch farms. We could even reintroduce the home delivery system and the travelling food van. One van wandering down the street selling direct to the household is a lot less fuel than all those people driving to the supermarket. Local produce door to door – sounds good to me, and a lot less waste in packaging and plastic bags. They could even collect your organic waste at the same time. What happened to the old tinker that would recycle peoples things through their van?

Okay, I digress. Local is best. We want local farmers. And small farmers are sick of being put out of business by the big corporations. You buy what you need, it is fresh and healthy, and the local restaurants and cafes are also using organic healthy foods. Home delivered, healthy vegan meals made from fresh local produce is the ideal. No freezer, no tins, no packaging, just reuseable containers that are cleaned and returned at the next delivery. If we are all eating similar healthy meals, then a local business could travel around in their van selling meals in the evening. That would also save on the energy of food preparation undertaken in homes every evening. And we would save on trips to the doctor and the chemist as we would be much healthier in ourselves and have more energy to walk or ride our pushbike.

So we have land restored, we have fresh water, we have local food, and we have community. Every local council is capable of achieving this by changing their focus in town planning. Stop trying to attract big manufacturing plants into your town and start looking after the people. Community is the centre of our connectedness, not factory jobs.

Actually manufacturing is going to decrease over the next ten years because the next step in mitigation is reducing the crap we buy. How much of what you buy goes into waste? How much goes into the cupboard and rarely used? How much sits on a shelf and collects dust? It all required natural resources and energy for manufacturing. Most of it contains fossil fuels either in its contents or the production process. Manufacturing is one of the worst users of fossil fuels.

So minimise your needs, get rid of the crap, especially the cheap nasty stuff you throw out anyway. Sit on your kerb and talk to your neighbours instead. Relax in the yard with the kids playing a game while you wait for the vegan meals to be delivered. Destress, because when you are stressed you buy more. Your addictions are all based on stress.

Mitigation is easy. We reduce our need for energy when we wind down our consumer habits and focus on local community. We can handle a population increase if we manage our land and resources better. We can handle a larger population if we are not all sick and miserable. We can work less hours if we are healthy and more productive. We can be healthy if we eat well and don’t have stress. We can take up less space if we accumulate less and reduce our wastage. We mitigate by simplifying, loving nature as if it were our best friend, and thinking outside of the box.

Mother Earth is heating up. She does not want more heat added to the planet through our thoughtlessness. Think of it like a perimenopausal woman that has been taken advantage of and abused and has had enough. She has lost her tolerance and is giving warning signs that things need to change. If you heed those signs, make changes, treat her with respect and care for her, she will calm down. But if not, she is heading for major tantrums and explosions and you will not want to be around that. If she is nurtured, she will restore her health and live a long and quality life still. But if pushed to the edge, she will break down, be old and worn out and not live as long. We are her children and it is our job to look after her.