Dear Editor,
In Robert Bryce’s 2013 article Wind Turbines Are Climate-Change Scarecrows, there is an apparent underlying argument that makes a much larger statement than his evidence supports. There is also a concluding, clearly hyperbolic, statement that highlights this apparent argument. “Over the past few years, the U.S. and other countries have been subsidizing the paving of vast areas of the countryside with 500-foot-high bird- and bat-killing whirligigs that are nothing more than climate talismans.”(Bryce, et al.) To define wind turbines in this manner indicates an opinion that wind turbines are not worthwhile whatsoever and that people should not invest in them.
Bryce’s main argument is that renewable energy would not be able to practically meet the growing demands of what was the 2013 global economy. This was, and even today is, true. However, it does not prove that renewable energy is not worthwhile. A demand, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary, is an insistent and peremptory request, as if by right. It is not always necessary to fulfil a demand. Even if one were to deem it absolutely necessary to fulfill the demands of a global civilization that discards over 41 million tons of plastic annually, (worldwatch.org, 2015) it is still illogical to discourage a form of renewable energy that contributes 2.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, (Bryce, et al.) even if that contribution is considered to be small. Also, Bryce does not mention the fact that nuclear power production requires a supply of uranium ore (niauk.org). Once that resource is depleted, nuclear power will not be able to fulfill any demands.
Using uranium ore to create nuclear energy is extremely efficient and produces less carbon emission than coal. (Bryce, et al.) This does not mean that investing in other, non-depleting resources is incorrect.
Sincerely,
Liam Scanlon
Comments are closed.