Nadendla 1

Sai Nadendla
Ms. Gardner
English 10H/Period 6
10 May 2016
The Future of Our Energy
What would become of the earth if we used all of its fossil fuel reserves for energy?
Evidence collected by Science Advances, a scientific journal, suggests the planets temperature
could rise more than fourteen degrees, sea levels could rise by hundreds of feet, and Antarctica
could completely disappear (Kolbert). Fossil fuels when burned release carbon emissions into the
air; these emissions lead to the rise in global climate temperatures and atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. If this major source of pollution is not
stopped the massive carbon emissions produced will not only destroy our environment, but also
affect the health of humans (Fischetti). There has been much controversy on whether this
dangerous substance should be outlawed, as many believe it could have many negative adversary
effects, such as an increased electricity bill cost. Admittedly, there has been a recent push to
further renewable energy by outlawing coal in certain states by a certain year in the future, but
this is only applicable to specific states and it has to become more widespread (Bryson and
Glendening). Fossil fuels must be outlawed and replaced by renewable energy sources, as they
are dangerous to us and the environment.
Initially, many claim that implementing renewable energy sources would be far more
inefficient and costly than continuing to use fossil fuels. Opponents argue fossil fuels require far
less plant, equipment, and land to harvest an equivalent amount of power compared to new
renewable energy sources (Darwall). Not to mention much of this equipment is very expensive,
and many oppose being forced to pay for it:

Nadendla 2

These laws force states to increase renewable electricity generation, regardless of whether
it makes sense for the local economy. New solar and wind farms cost substantial sums,
which are then passed on to individuals and businesses through higher energy bills. Even
once they are up and running, the electricity they generate costs a pretty penny. (Bryson
and Glendening)
Renewable sources are also only currently primarily used as backup sources, as they rely on
variables man can not control (Darwall). This would lead to the greater inefficiency of renewable
sources, as they only work during certain times and conditions. Additionally, Rupert Darwall, a
reporter for The Wall Street Journal, points out that even when running under complete
renewable energy, we would still need to invest in fossil-fuel capacity to provide on-demand
power when the wind isn't blowing or the sun doesn't shine (Darwall). Opposition towards
renewable energy primarily stems from their belief that renewable energy sources would be
greatly inferior to long proven energy source, fossil fuels. Many also turn towards the price
aspect, as in areas already implementing renewable energy saw their electricity bills went up
(Bryson and Glendening). This is primarily attributed to the fact that it was conducted on a small
scale, and the cost of implementation would have been carried into the the price of electricity for
a few years. Renewable energy would also become more efficient through advances in
technology over time, as more money was invested into the emerging field, and more constant,
sustainable energy producing methods were implemented.
It is true implementing renewable energy would be a costly and tedious process, as would
be building any new infrastructure. However, the dangers of fossils fuels greatly outweigh any
amount of time, money, or resources needed to bring a new sustainable infrastructure to fruition.
Once this new infrastructure is implemented many analysts, from the Bloomberg New Energy
Finance, agree the renewable energy generated could be cheaper than the cost of fossil fuels

Nadendla 3

(Buchanan). For instance, models illustrate that transitioning Australia to 100% renewable
energy by 2050 would cost less than continuing on the current path (Slezak and Evershed).
Likewise, a report by the Frankfurt School, a collaborating center of the United Nations
Environment Programme, showed that every dollar invested in renewable energy bought
significantly more generating capacity (Buchanan). The fuel cost savings gained by
transitioning to renewable energy could account for nearly 110 percent of the initial investments
put in to build the infrastructure for the emerging field.(Buchanan) Based on these forecasts of
expert analysts we can conclude the infrastructure to bring forth renewable energy would be
expensive, but the costs would be recouped in the long run, as the new system generated more
energy. If the cost to implement renewable energy would pay for itself in the long run why are
dirty fossil fuels still the primary source of our energy?
Clean renewable energy sources can be woven into a single unified network creating a
source of energy just as reliable as the long lasting and proven fossil fuel industry. Michael
Slezak and Nick Evershed, who consulted with the Clean Energy Council, stated that a mixture
of renewable energy sources would in all scenarios maintain a constant flow of power. Similarly,
according to a report released by David Danielson, an Assistant Secretary for the United States
Energy Department, revealed Hydropower currently provides approximately seven percent of
the U.S. electricity supply -- enough to power more than 20 million homes, and has experienced
significant growth industry-wide(Energy Department Issues). Hydropower alleviates much
pressure on electrical grids, and helps prevent outages caused by spikes in demand clearly
demonstrating its worth. Hydropower has proven it can last the test of time, as for more than
100 years, hydropower has delivered a source of clean, renewable electricity in almost every
state (Energy Department Issues...). Renewable energy sources could prove equally reliable as
fossil fuels according to these expert opinions; this would alleviate some of the opposition

Nadendla 4

towards renewable energy, as there would no need to worry about power going out. Hydropower
also proves that some forms of renewable forms of energy can be just as efficient and effective as
fossil fuels. This clearly shows renewable energy sources can be equally as reliable as fossil fuels
if they are intelligently unified into a single energy network.
Renewable energy unlike fossil fuels do not have a finite supply on this planet; they
maintain this while producing zero carbon emissions. The lack of carbon emissions in the air
drastically improves the condition of our environment and our bodies. Projections, based off the
Central Intelligence Agencys world database, illustrate fossil fuels could run out as soon as 2088
(Singh). In addition, many doctors, have noted fossil fuels emit volumes of pollutants, which
can cause a variety of illnesses(Fischetti). Many cases of asthma, pneumonia, bronchitis, and
other lung issues have all been attributed to the carbon emissions of fossil fuels. These cases are
not rare either, and in the United States alone there was 5.13 million people who lost workdays
due to particulate pollution from fossil fuel power plants (Fischetti).The emissions from fossil
fuels have also been linked with the increase in the average global temperature; this leads to the
rise of sea levels, inundation of wetlands, extreme weather events, and ecosystem collapse
(Kolbert). Interestingly, the rate of global warming is only speeding up according to Eric Rignot,
a researcher at NASAs Jet Propulsion Lab, Sea-level rise is one foot per century, and we are
talking about the possibility of this being three feet per century or even thirty feet per
century(qtd. in Kolbert). This research, conducted by NASA scientists, conveys that if our
primary energy source is not transferred from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources than we
could experience sudden blackouts as the finite supply of fossil fuels dwindled off (Kolbert).
Therefore, it is clear that renewable energy sources must be implemented, as they will never run
out all while not taxing the already stressed planet.

Nadendla 5

In conclusion, fossil fuels must be banned because of their emissions detrimental effects
on the environment and on the people surrounded by them. Fossil fuels left unregulated would
cause the slow death of the planet through the destruction of ecosystems, through the rising of
sea levels, and through the severe changes to the weather patterns (Kolbert). Fossil fuels would
began to affect your daily activity causing lung irritation through particulate pollution preventing
you from going outside (Fischetti). This controversy remains so prevalent because of the lack of
knowledge many possess towards the dangers of fossils fuels, and their ill ideologies of saving
money. Whether fossil fuels are outlawed in your generation or the next, you can create change
for the world by opting for clean renewable energy.

Works Cited
Bryson, Donald, and Jeff Glendening. "States Are Unplugging Their Renewable-Energy
Mandates." Wall Street Journal. 11 Jul. 2015: A.9. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web.
26 Apr.

2016.
Buchanan, Sean. "A "Year of Eye-Catching Steps Forward" for Renewable

Energy."Global

Information Network. 31 Mar. 2015: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher.

Nadendla 6

Web. 26 Apr. 2016. Darwall, Rupert. "Obama's Renewable-Energy Fantasy." Wall Street
Journal. 06 Jul. 2015:

A.13. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.

"Energy Department Issues New Report, Highlights the

Success and..." DOE News. 27 Apr.

2016.
Scientific American. N.p., 31 Aug.

2015: n.p. SIRS Government Reporter. Web. 26 Apr.

Fischetti, Mark. "The Health Care Burden of Fossil Fuels."
2011. Web. 5 May 2016.
Kolbert, Elizabeth. "If We Burned All the Fossil Fuel in the

World." The New Yorker. N.p., 11

Sept. 2015. Web. 1 May 2016.

Singh, Siddharth. "How Long Will Fossil Fuels

Last?" Business Standard. N.p., 23 Sept. 2015.

Web. 1 May 2016.

Slezak, Michael, and Nick Evershed.

"Modelling Shows Move to 100% Renewable Energy

Money." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 18 Apr. 2016.

Would save Australia

Web. 26 Apr. 2016.