Response to "A dangerous, costly path"
Url: http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SXX75345-0-7236&artno=0000261411&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=&res=Y&ren=Y&gov=Y&lnk=Y&ic=N
This article deals with concerns about nuclear power, as well as the positive and negative impacts of using it as a viable source of energy. The author, Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, highlights the pros and cons of nuclear energy, relates it to the greatest issue of our generation - global warming, and gives suggestions on possible alternatives.
Global warming is something that might not affect the individual directly, but its effects can be read in newspapers everyday. News of rising sea levels, melting ice caps, floods and droughts, are becoming increasingly common. Nuclear energy does not contribute to carbon emissions and is capable of producing enormous energy. While it seems to be the answer to global warming, it is too money consuming and unsafe for mankind to use it worldwide. We could use other 'clean' sources of energy like wind or solar power, which are cheaper and safe, but have lower energy outputs.
The article stresses on the importance of energy conservation, which is highly overlooked. Indeed, every single person can prevent that tiny bit of carbon from escaping to the atmosphere and contributing to the greenhouse effect. Simple measures such as turning off electrical appliances when not used and making the effort to recycle plastic bottles and metal cans help greatly to decrease carbon emissions. Also, it does not stop at the personal level. Some supermarkets set aside certain days when disposable plastic bags must be paid for, to encourage more people to use reusable bags. 'Green' cars have been designed, and are increasingly popular with the community. Recently, a few countries organized 'Live Earth', aiming to spread the message of energy conservation to the world. These are the ways in which we have attempted to resolve the issue of global warming.
I feel that the most viable way of stopping carbon emissions is to use clean energy from three sources: wind, solar, and hydroelectric. These three sources should be our main energy providers, with nuclear power providing a minor 6% of the energy as it is today. That way, the radioactive by-products generated would not go out of our control. This, I feel, is the best way of reducing carbon emissions, but it might not be cost-efficient or practical. As of now, only 7% of the world's energy supply comes from renewable sources; the transition from burning fossil fuels to renewable energy would take a lot of time and money.
Indeed, Frances Beinecke feels that a more gradual approach by allowing nuclear power to compete with other renewable sources does better, and also feels that energy efficiency is the most important resource of all. A gradual change makes sense, because change in this area is difficult to achieve when the world places economy first, rather than the environment. We have to make the transition slow and steady, and meanwhile, do our part by conserving what energy we can.
This article deals with concerns about nuclear power, as well as the positive and negative impacts of using it as a viable source of energy. The author, Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, highlights the pros and cons of nuclear energy, relates it to the greatest issue of our generation - global warming, and gives suggestions on possible alternatives.
Global warming is something that might not affect the individual directly, but its effects can be read in newspapers everyday. News of rising sea levels, melting ice caps, floods and droughts, are becoming increasingly common. Nuclear energy does not contribute to carbon emissions and is capable of producing enormous energy. While it seems to be the answer to global warming, it is too money consuming and unsafe for mankind to use it worldwide. We could use other 'clean' sources of energy like wind or solar power, which are cheaper and safe, but have lower energy outputs.
The article stresses on the importance of energy conservation, which is highly overlooked. Indeed, every single person can prevent that tiny bit of carbon from escaping to the atmosphere and contributing to the greenhouse effect. Simple measures such as turning off electrical appliances when not used and making the effort to recycle plastic bottles and metal cans help greatly to decrease carbon emissions. Also, it does not stop at the personal level. Some supermarkets set aside certain days when disposable plastic bags must be paid for, to encourage more people to use reusable bags. 'Green' cars have been designed, and are increasingly popular with the community. Recently, a few countries organized 'Live Earth', aiming to spread the message of energy conservation to the world. These are the ways in which we have attempted to resolve the issue of global warming.
I feel that the most viable way of stopping carbon emissions is to use clean energy from three sources: wind, solar, and hydroelectric. These three sources should be our main energy providers, with nuclear power providing a minor 6% of the energy as it is today. That way, the radioactive by-products generated would not go out of our control. This, I feel, is the best way of reducing carbon emissions, but it might not be cost-efficient or practical. As of now, only 7% of the world's energy supply comes from renewable sources; the transition from burning fossil fuels to renewable energy would take a lot of time and money.
Indeed, Frances Beinecke feels that a more gradual approach by allowing nuclear power to compete with other renewable sources does better, and also feels that energy efficiency is the most important resource of all. A gradual change makes sense, because change in this area is difficult to achieve when the world places economy first, rather than the environment. We have to make the transition slow and steady, and meanwhile, do our part by conserving what energy we can.
posted by link at 9:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home