It is not true that the scientific community is split on climate change. Having worked as part of that community, as a research scientist, I can tell you this with absolute certainty. Global warming is not a separate issue, but the driving force behind climate change. It affects circulation patterns that dictate climate. Thus, as they shift due to warming climates change. The understanding that the Earth is experiencing rapid change due to human activities that disrupt the nature carbon cycle is essentially universal within that community.
Now, as to wether or not electrification is the answer it’s marketed to be, that continues to be a topic of debate. Researchers have, for instance, recognized that the mining activities required to electrify will cause waste to accumulate exponentially. (Mining activities currently produce about 30 billion tonnes of waste annually.) This is toxic waste, composed of heavy metals and chemicals that severely impact the health of environment and human beings exposed. These researchers note that the containment strategies that have been marginally effective to this point are beginning to fail completely as the waste produced in extracting materials required for battery technologies are beginning to fail completely.
(Source: Decarbonisation to drive dramatic increase in mining waste – Options for reduction. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, Volume 190, March 2023.)
Next, we must consider the impact the impact electronic waste has on the environment, as the majority of it ends up landfill. Electronic waste is the fastest growing form of toxic waste at this time. Researchers estimate that about 55 million tonnes is produced each year, and that by 2030 that number will be 75 million tonnes. The World Health Organization takes issue with this, as the heavy metals and chemicals released into the environment through leaching allows people to be exposed. Birth defects and other issues that will be no easier to live with than climate change are the result. We currently recycle less than 15% of this waste.
(Source: Electronic waste (e-waste). World Health Organization Newsroom, October 18, 2023)
Having read about the debate that surrounded the use of petroleum and disastrous consequences it might have from 1890 forward, I know recognition of threat associated with electrification is not enough to ensure disaster is avoided. To the contrary, the fact that these problems have been identified but not properly addressed suggests that pattern will be repeated. Given that these problems will be added to those we continue to face due to the anthropologic release of carbon, I can’t in good conscience say we’re ready to move forward with electrification, let alone mandate that a certain percentage of new cars be electric. In fact, hybrids are a much better option.
Hybrids are a better option than electric because they require far less mining to produce. A certain amount of energy is required to collect, refine, manufacture, and assemble the components that make up our cars and trucks. The latest assessment of electric cars suggests it takes twice the energy to produce one than a traditional car. Add to this the fact that a great deal of that energy and the energy that will be used to charge it is derived from fossil-fuels and you’ve got a technology that will increase global emissions for now. Yes, there is a point at which they begin to reduce them, but this is far off yet.
(Source: We need more than just electric vehicles: To decarbonize road transport we need to complement EVs with bikes, rail, city planning, and alternative energy. IEEE Spectrum, Aug 20, 2022.)
The other problem we see with electrification is increasing energy demand. This technology isn’t reducing demand, it’s growing it. Every time a method for reducing energy consumption comes along, engineers find a way to add marketable features to our electronics that utilize the energy saved and then some. A decade or so ago scientists would point to the increased demand for energy to encourage investment in alternative energy technologies. At that point we were saying demand grew too fast for petroleum supply to meet. We’ve now reached a level of consumption that petroleum and alternative sources combined can’t meet, without constant growth.
This is where we are. It has a great deal more to do with the psychology of large populations than it does with technology. It’s a funny thing, as populations grow and pool their resources demand for them doesn’t decrease as you might expect. Hierarchies develop that ensure the collective demands more than if it were divided into its constituent parts. The rich always demand more and, to ensure they get it, promise those below them more. The larger the population the more tiers there are consuming more material than if there were fewer tiers. Until we find a way to change this, we will stress every energy resource we have at our disposal.
Jamie Beaulieu
Farmington, Maine
Opinion pieces reflect the views of the individual author, and do not reflect the views of the Daily Bulldog, Mt. Blue TV, or Central Maine Media Alliance. Publication of an opinion piece does not equate to endorsement of the content of the piece.
