Thursday, 6 December 2012

Global Warming and Green Tech.

I say in my tagline that I don't blog about the environment, but call this a special circumstance. You see, I take biology as one of my A-levels and on the syllabus is the cheery topic of global warming. As the course content for global warming is pretty much identical to what we were taught two years ago, my class was told to do some extra research to present the next day.

I love a project, I really do. I'll be the first to admit that despite my belief in green tech, I'm not much a fan of the actual science behind it. Yet I still spent six hours that night researching and referencing.

What I got was far from what I expected - by this I mean I was expecting a veritable minefield of backed-up scientific studies proving the existence of global warming and the effect carbon dioxide and methane have on it, and a bunch of quacks talking it up as a global conspiracy. In other words, I'd expected it to be pips. It wasn't. It really was an eye-opener though, and while I still belief in the importance of cutting back on emissions of greenhouse gases and think that green tech is a majorly important topic of research, I now understand where the people who don't believe in global warming are coming from.

But what on earth is the problem with green tech? The moment you talk solar power, wind energy or even recycled rainwater, people link it to global warming. Let's take global warming out of it for a minute, as at the heart of it, renewable energy has little to do with global warming. Renewable energy is about conservation.

I don't give a monkeys whether you believe in global warming or not, but you do have to agree - at least I'm sure you do if you've done any form of high-school science - that coal, gas and oil are all finite substances. They are going to run out. It doesn't matter if you've found tonnes of oil under Alaska, it doesn't matter if you've found loads of coal somewhere else; when that's all gone, where are you going to go next?

This manic cling to fossil fuels is moronic. Given the choice between a free item and an expensive item of the same quality, which are you going to pick? The free one of course. So why do we continue to push fossil fuels - the expensive option in more ways that one - above the free one?

So, renewable energy sources tend to be less reliable, so what? The Haber process can give an awful yield, but noting that did people put their hands up and go "oh well"? No, they didn't. They employed Chatelier's Principle and played with the equilibrium. So why are we so lazy when it comes to green tech?

I'm going to end this post before I start ranting about the downfalls of our lazy, take-take society.
See you next time,
Schy.

(P.S. Thought I'd talk about the EU next, but I then realised I've done that already *sigh*. Just debating whether to do a review post of Rise of the Ancients - awesome film - or Pitch Perfect now...)

Edit: Oops, I lied - it doesn't appear I have talked about the EU...

No comments:

Post a Comment