For over 20 years, international leaders have been meeting to discuss the dangers of climate change and the influence of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Climate scientists worry that if carbon emissions are not drastically reduced in the next few years, we will not be able to stop the increase in global temperature at 2°C from pre-industrial temperatures, and that it could rise from 4°C to 6°C. Such an increase would be extremely detrimental to states in all parts of the world, causing a drastic rise in sea levels, extreme weather catastrophes, and dramatically reduced agricultural yields, which could result in global food shortages. Guidelines laid out in the Kyoto Protocol were intended to maintain greenhouse gas emissions “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The Protocol has not proven to be very effective, however, as emission levels have actually been on the rise.
The first line of defense when trying to fight carbon emissions has been to encourage the use of clean, alternative energies, including but not limited to solar, wind, hydropower, and various forms of nuclear energy. These technologies have been introduced more in recent years but have failed to replace traditional fossil fuel energy sources entirely – or indeed, to displace fossil fuels to any significant degree. Drawbacks to alternative energy sources include that they often do not produce energy as quickly as fossil fuels, they rely on particular weather conditions to operate at their best capabilities, and that startup costs can be daunting, especially for developing nations. An intermediate possibility that has gained a lot of traction in recent years is the process of gasification, by which fossil fuels or other organic materials – often biodegradable waste – are subjected to high temperatures (>700°C) and exposed to particular amounts of oxygen or steam and prevented from undergoing combustion. This produces a material called syngas or producer gas, which burns cleaner and more efficiently than traditional fossil fuels. If produced from biomass, syngas can be generated completely independently of fossil fuels, although the emission of carbon dioxide remains an issue.
If we do not change our trajectory and greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, the attendant global temperature increase projected by climate scientists could have catastrophic effects. The Environmental Committee needs to focus on ways to curb carbon emissions through the use of alternative energy sources, but how to go about that is a matter for much dispute. Attempting to penalize states for excessive carbon emissions, as an incentive for shifting to alternative energy sources, has proven to be a non-starter. Such initiatives are either ignored, unenforced, or never make it off the floor of climate summits. Policies of positive incentives and technical cooperation and assistance are much more likely to prove effective. Deciding which sources to prioritize, when, and where will also be of the utmost importance. While nuclear fusion – which produces no toxic waste and carries no risk of catastrophic meltdown – may be the “holy grail” of alternative energy, practical fusion for energy production is still years away, even for the richest countries. This committee must determine guidelines for alternative energy development that allow for a gradual, practical evolution and can fit countries at various stages of economic development.
Focus Questions:
* How can alternative energy sources be better utilized in the nations that already have the technology? How can they be made more accessible to those nations who do not? * What other steps can be taken by the international community to encourage the widespread development of alternative energy? * What alternative energy sources offer the most long-term potential? Which are most practical in the short term?
Useful Links: