My heart wrenched as I followed the news of the Super Typhoon
Haiyan hitting the Philippines. One of the strongest storms on record, Haiyan
made Katrina and Sandy look like “weak cousins.”
How many more lives and losses will it take for us to stop
our sleepwalking march toward climate change catastrophes? When will we figure
out how to cut greenhouse gas emissions?
Yet over 1 billion people in the world are still without
access to electricity. The problem is not that we don’t have energy to go
around. Rather, the benefits (and costs) of energy production are not shared
equally.
Ironically, the countries whose citizens are “energy poor” are often
the ones whose energy wealth is exported to consumers in richer countries. Myanmar
is a case in point. Its energy exports are among the top in the Southeast Asian
region. Yet, only 26% of its population has access to electricity.
 |
| the top 1 percent own 40 percent of U.S. wealth Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/inequality-is-worse-than-you-think-2013-3#ixzz2mjcK4asw |
The primary issue is gross inequality. 40% of the world’s wealth is concentrated in
the hands of the top 1% while 80 percent of humanity lives on less than $10 a
day. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, “The world has enough for everyone's need,
but not enough for everyone's greed.”
Is there a better way to equitably meet everyone’s energy
needs without hurting the planet and each other?
How about “green energy”
(energy conservation, efficiency and renewable energy)? There is no doubt that
green energy opportunities should be exploited to their maximum economic
potentials before unsustainable options such as nuclear and fossil fuels are
pursued. But there is no magic energy bullet; even in countries where green
energy is embraced, CO2 emissions have hardly decreased.
Fossil fuels are not easily replaceable by other energy
forms. Having evolved with and turbo-charged capitalism, fossil fuels are key inputs
in industrial processes (to make plastics and various other goods) and ingredients
(synthetic fertilizers) in food production. They enable creation of a mobile
yet dispensable work force; the relocation of production bases to areas where
cheap labor can be obtained; the abstraction of geography (resources anywhere are
now fair game for multinational corporations). They are time- and labor-savers,
conveyors of international trade, yardsticks of progress, supposed guarantors
of “national security” (from energy, food and economic perspectives), as well
as addictive drugs in the guises of convenience and comfort.
It is difficult to come to grips with how deep the “fossil
fuel” hole is that humanity has found itself in. It is even more challenging to
grasp the full implications of the changes needed to save humanity from itself.
Green energy is a step in the right direction, but is just a small part of the
changes needed. Without changing the fundamentals of our capitalist economy,
our production, our sense of “security”, our relationship with wealth and
inequality, it is difficult to make a real climate difference and meet
everyone’s needs.
So what can be done? More on this soon. But meanwhile, if you
have ideas, do share.
