Dear Editor:
RE: Fossil fuels, June 10.
I was angered when I first read Henry Brunsveld’s three reasons on why the age of fossil fuels is here to stay.
But after reading a second time, I realized he was misinformed so it was best to address his points.
1. I found it interesting when Brunsveld mentioned China, the largest carbon emitter, having no intention of reducing emissions, citing coal making up a staggering 58% of total consumption in 2019. This number is down from 59% in 2018 and has been steadily decreasing since 2011. It is also important to note that China remains the largest global investor in green energy, putting a total of nearly $758 billion to renewables since 2010 until 2019 which is more than the next three highest combined. As for India and Russia, despite being 3rd and 4th, combined they still only make up 12% of global emissions compared to China’s 28%, and are both making efforts to lower their respective contributions.
2. Brunsveld also conveniently left out the United States as the 2nd highest carbon emitter in his first point, but then proceeds to bash Joe Biden’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions. He also claims that “according to his reading sources” the impact of mining and processing materials needed for batteries is far more inefficient than those same processes used for fossil fuels. Nitpicking steps in battery production accomplishes nothing; to truly comment on the impact of electric vehicles (EV) you need to view it from cradle to grave. Look at any life-cycle analysis on EVs in the past three years and every one of them will tell you that EVs have a much smaller carbon footprint than internal combustion engine vehicles. As to your last claim about a 1,000-pound battery requiring 500,000 pounds of materials, I gave that a quick search and I assume it’s from one of the many Facebook posts that fact-checking websites have claimed are false.
3. The price of green energy has been reducing incredibly quickly for years and is just as efficient as fossil fuels. I also think many people would agree that solar and wind farms are less of an “eyesore” than the giant smokestacks and dirty fumes of coal and gas plants. Finally, please retire the pathetic “thousands of birds killed by windmills” argument. If you truly cared about the environment and the animals that inhabit it, I suggest you look into coral bleaching, which is caused by global warming.
As a university student in engineering looking to pursue sustainable technologies, it pains me to see that so many are against ideas of creating a more sustainable Earth. Change is inevitable, embrace it.
Darby Smyth,
Orton