"Every year since 1971, more than 80% of all our energy has come from fossil fuels. That’s still true today, which is surprising for two reasons. Most nuclear power plants came online between 1971 and 1990, and most renewable energy farms were built in the last 10 years. We’ve added so many more non-fossil-fuel energy sources in the past 45 years, and yet it doesn’t seem to be at all reflected in the chart. First, most of the world’s clean-energy sources are used to generate electricity. But electricity forms only 25% of the world’s energy consumption. Second, as the rich world moved towards a cleaner energy mix, much of the poor world was just starting to gain access to modern forms of energy. Inevitably, they chose the cheapest option, which was and remains fossil fuels. For the first time in many decades, between 2014 and 2016, the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions remained flat. It seemed like just maybe the world had figured out a way to keep growing without emitting more, possibly thanks to clean-energy use. Unfortunately, new projections suggest we’re going to finish 2017 with more emissions than 2016. That’s because the rich world is not cutting its emissions fast enough, and the poor world continues to grow rapidly. All this is keeping in line with a long-standing trend of our startling dependence on fossil fuels." Should there be higher taxes on fossil fuels in rich countries to encourage development of green/renewable energy sources? I believe climate change is a man-made phenomenon, and we'll need to encourage renewable energy production and use as many ways as possible, whether that be bio-fuels from used fats/coffee/prairie grasses/algae to wind/solar or ways yet to be invented in rich countries. And, we'll need to help poor countries wean themselves of fossil fuels. What do you think? The chart that shows the world's astonishing dependence on fossil fuels — Quartz @TidelandPrius, if you feel this belongs in FHoPol, please move it. Posted via the PriusChat mobile app.
Doesn't help a whole lot when you install a windmill and can't get the electric company to sign off on it. (They have to pay you if you put power onto the grid - I'm assuming they don't like this) Secondly, it's also a bit ridiculous to be charged a fee if you use less electricity than expected. I know here in Indiana, we use more electricity than we generate. You would think they would take any kid of power they could get. Be it from civilian or power company.
I assume that success stories around the world should be enough to convince lagging governments to get on board with renewable energy. Penalizing them seems like coercion rather than enticement, which may be less successful.
I like how most of the electric companies have been promoting energy-saving methods (LED lighting, etc.) and renewable energy at the consumer end so they don't have to invest in new power plants, then turn around and ask for rate hikes because their income is dropping...