I have noticed that over the last few years, a lot of people have seem to be getting scared about the current state of global warming, and this number keeps increasing. But, I have also noticed that the amount that become radicalized by global issues like these often do not have the mental capacity to come up with pragmatic solutions to solve this problem. Many political figures use the climate as a means to gain power, which can result in further polarization and radicalization.
It’s not all black and white
Although it’s true that we as humans have accelerated the overall warming of the earth due to emitting things like Carbon Dioxide and Methane, there will always be natural factors that come into play when it comes to whether the earth will be in a state of warming or cooling. A good example of this are the El Nino/La Nina cycles, which can directly influence weather conditions on Earth. Those phenomenons are on the other hand quite trivial when it comes the majority of warming this earth has experienced.
The problem that I have with modern climate activism is that a lot of people are ideologically captured and engage in tactics that are often intrusive and can hurt the reputation rather than making them see as the people we need in order to prevent further warming. Not only that, but a lot of those people carry an anti-capitalist mindset and tend to promote things like “socialism”, making those people left-wing by nature. And although those forms of government and its variations have been tried before, they often ended up creating more corruption and oppression to what they’d thought. Stalin alone was responsible for millions of deaths during the Soviet Union, and under regimes like The Khmer Rouge and Mao Zedong millions died as well. Even the Nazis who where predominantly socialist caused one of the greatest humanitarian disasters in history known as the Holocaust. Plus I have heard some people say that countries like Denmark, Sweden and Norway are “socialist” while those statements are further from the truth, as I’d call the majority of European countries social market economies.
But aside from that, I have seen that those people are willing to do everything they can in order to radically change the current system and de-industrialize or scale down many industrial parts of the country. But when it comes to mitigating the risks of climate change, there’s a way without having to change the current system and having people pay more just so they can live on their lives and without risking de-industrialization.
The plan
Here’s is my detailed plan on how we can cut back emissions while allowing for innovation and exploration of alternatives. Do note that some things like the aviation and shipping industry are very hard to decarbonize completely, so they are not included in the list. I am well aware of the fact that fossil fuels are very hard to phase out for those industries, and that we need them even when we’re phasing things that use them out.
Important Note: This plan is not a magic bullet for every single country. Every country is different and has different challenges, thus this guide wouldn’t apply to every country. This plan is primarily for the country I currently reside in, The Netherlands.
Short/Medium Term
Keeping fossil fuel production alive until alternatives can be produced locally at scale
Stopping fossil fuel production while no suitable alternatives are locally available at scale is just a way to set a country up for failure. Importing things like oil, gas and other goods isn’t going to help either, because of the time it takes to get there as well as the energy required to get it here. Countries often use this an an excuse to look more environmentally friendly, but in reality, they are shoving those emissions elsewhere while importing tons of essential goods that can easily be locally produced. That’s of course to say that not everything can or will be produced locally, but by producing your own goods, you can become less dependent on other countries. And the most daunting thing is that people complain that subsidies for fossil fuel exist, but they somehow don’t see that if there are no alternatives, there’s simply no other option.
Building clean hydrogen infrastructure at scale
Through the power of electrolysis, we can turn water into hydrogen. And despite it not being at 100% efficiency, we can eventually scale it out so that we can eventually phase out natural gas for hydrogen production. Steel production, cement production and even agriculture can benefit from this. This also ensures that the hydrogen doesn’t contain harmful nitrogen gases. By using clean hydrogen, this can create fertilizers that are not derived from fossil fuels and can contribute to a better agriculture industry. Greenhouses can also use this technology as well as electrification for their heating/cooling systems.
Electrifying energy intensive industry
The meat industry is well known for being carbon and energy intensive. And although that it’s not fully possible to eliminate methane emissions from livestock, there are efforts that we can make in order to reduce the footprint. By electrifying major parts of the chain and by using fertilizers that are derived from clean hydrogen, you can already cut a significant amount of carbon emissions. Of course there will always be some emissions, but every single bit helps. Electric tractors also help when it comes to agriculture, as despite those being heavier, they are often quieter and more advanced. And although scaling down cuts emissions, that counts for the rest of industry and electricity generation as well.
Shifting the majority of freight from road to rail
This one is obvious. Truckers having to drive long distances with their containers before they’re able to get to their destination. Trains on the other hand can haul multiple containers at once that have the same destination. And until the train isn’t at its destination, there don’t need to be any trucks hauling those containers. Yes, I know that electric tractors exist, but even then it would be better to haul from train to truck within your own country to minimize the distance. And by electrifying important rail corridors, this makes the shift even more feasible. This does depend on the voltage, as 25kV at 50/60Hz AC seems to be the best standard for heavy freight trains. In the country where I live for example, the majority of catenary runs under 1.5kV DC. This is absolutely not feasible and will make the transition a lot more difficult. In that case, by shifting to 3kV DC, it would improve efficiency by about 20% and increase the overall traction power.
Long Term
Phasing out coal and natural gas with nuclear power and expanding renewable electricity generation
Despite nuclear power having a poor reputation among certain left-wing figures, it is still one of the cleanest ways to generate electricity. Combine it with renewable energy sources to support the grid, and you’ve got yourself some stable and clean energy that will power almost everything. Small modular reactors can also be built in places where the demand is high and don’t take that long to build compared to full-scale nuclear power plants. Fossil fuels for electricity for this case should only be used in a case of emergency.
If you want to know more about why nuclear power shouldn’t be feared, you can read this article I have written here.
Phasing out diesel and hybrid vehicles
The first focus should be on phasing out diesel-only vehicles. This also counts for trains, but using batteries or hydrogen for trains is not always the best solution. This is not just about decarbonization, but also about efficiency. And while electric cars and trucks can be highly efficient, the same can’t always be said for electric trains on batteries.
Decarbonizing military equipment would be a lot more difficult on the other hand. But as long as there’s no war, they don’t need to be used that often. And by shifting regular car use to electricity, fossil fuel reserves would be higher in times of war and conflict.
If you want to learn more, you can read this article about why electric trains are better than battery ones here.
Of course, regulations are necessary to make sure that everyone adheres to the rules. But over time, if genuine alternatives exist, people and companies want to make the switch. All over the world, renewable energy sources and even nuclear are becoming more popular. Once people treat climate change as an oppurtunity for innovation rather than a problem, it will change the minds of thousands of people around the world and unlock new oppurtunities for economic growth without having to sacrifice with emitting excess amounts of carbon dioxide and methane. But in order for that to happen, the alternatives need to be produced at scale to be able to keep up with the rising demand.
In the end, we don’t have to fundamentally change the current system to be able to combat climate change, as long as there are regulations in place, and that there are enough alternatives to fossil fuels, because if there aren’t due to a lack of infrastructure, the subsidies for those carbon-intensive fuels will remain.