Op-Ed: Go Green? Not So Fast
By Katie Larkin
For decades, citizens, politicians, and the average “go green” activist have been fighting about the issue of climate change and the effect it has had on the planet. With protests, proposed bills, and the historic Paris Climate Accords, people are still no closer to solving this issue. Some insist that climate change is a myth, while others believe it to be real and wish to introduce costly methods to address it. Renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and water, are thought of as reasonable methods to combat climate change. Many, however, are unaware of the downsides to the technologies harnessing them.
According to a 2018 scitechdaily.com article titled, “Wind Farms Cause More Environmental Impact Than Previously Thought,” “Harvard University researchers find that the transition to wind or solar power in the U.S. would require five to 20 times more land than previously thought, and, if such large-scale wind farms were built, would warm average surface temperatures over the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius.” Wind turbines and solar panels may sound like they do something good for the environment, but their effects are far from it.
“The direct climate impacts of wind power are instant, while the benefits of reduced emissions accumulate slowly. If your perspective is the next 10 years, wind power actually has…more climate impact than coal or gas. If your perspective is the next thousand years, then wind power has enormously less climatic impact than coal or gas,” the scitechdaily.com article continues. Activists believe earth doesn’t have years left before it will die, yet they are willing to take a risk that will not see change for a thousand years? Something that will have more of an impact on our planet than the current emissions under coal and gas?
Energy production is far lower than what scientists initially predicted this technology could accomplish. “For wind, we found that the average power density — meaning the rate of energy generation divided by the encompassing area of the wind plant — was up to 100 times lower than estimates by some leading energy experts,” the article reads. Energy generation for turbines is also dependent on windy areas, which are few and far between in the United States.
Solar panels, initially designed with the idea of using energy from the sun to power homes, cars, and basic infrastructure, are produced in coal-powered plants and have the same negative impacts mentioned above. A major problem, exclusive to these panels, proves an even greater challenge. “The Duck Curve,” a funny name with a not so funny effect, shows that energy consumption and production do not meet the needs of consumers. Solar production peaks during daylight hours, but appliances are not used much during this time. At night, however, everything from lights to TVs are turned on, but at a time where available energy has already dropped. An unstable power source causes unnecessary deaths during harsh winters and summers.
The solution that works to combat global warming, one that has no negative effect on the environment and is relatively cheap, is planting trees. Princeton University published a study in 2021 titled “Planting Forests May Cool the Planet More than Thought,” where they examined the effect of large-scale forests on atmospheric temperature. “The models showed that clouds form more frequently over forested areas than over grasslands and other areas with short vegetation, and that this enhanced cloud formation had a cooling effect on Earth’s atmosphere.” Although different ecosystems have to be taken into account before planting, the data shows that the most effective climate solutions have existed longer than panels, turbines, and other man-made technologies.
