This calls fro the investment in the energy sources that are considered ethical, environmental friendly and also addressing the social issues. The use of biomass has been suggested as the most effective alternative to the use of fossil fuel.
The renewable energy sources are not a substitute to the fossils energies per se because they may cause other adverse effects like ion the case of palm oil in Netherlands; this was discovered to be more dangerous than the fossil fuels because of the scientific evidence, which showed that it caused more destruction to the environment (Littell 2005). The use of bio fuel also revealed that the methane gas which would be released was just as harmful as carbon dioxide from fossil fuel.
On the other hand, the use of bio fuel from the food stuff would not be economical because, it would utilize most of the land which could otherwise be used for agriculture while at the same time the whole grain harvest for instance in the united states, converting it to manufacture oil would only yield up to 16% of the total fuel needs, in the Latin America, the growing of sugar cane as supported by the US lead to destruction of forests making it obvious that the large scale investment in to the bio fuel would create competition for land (food crops, forest and bio fuel plantation) and the result would be food shortage and increased prices of the important necessity (Jackson 2006). Most countries are likely to become depended on foreign energy. Many of the developing nations will not be able to afford the technology involved in the production of the bio fuel or other alternatives that are considered ethical and environmental friendly. This is because the technology is relatively new and maybe very costly (Newton 2003). The developed countries may have the capital to invest but lack the land and these calls for cooperation between governments though some may be seen as exploitation.
For instance the sugar cane plantation in Argentina meant to produce ethanol, the project was backed by the United States who wanted to use it for production of bio fuel hence clearing large pieces of land and reducing land for food crop production. The volumes produced by the project were meant for Argentinas domestic use and led to increased prices of sugar and practically led to cultivation of one crop (sugarcane) seen by the thousands of hectares covered by sugar cane fields. This could be a serious tragedy of crop letdown waiting to take place. The result of the investment in the bio fuel could be worse if the bio fuel campaign to substitute petroleum oil with bio fuel is enacted (Jackson 2006).
Most countries consider energy conservation as a fundamental part of government projects that the world uses to decrease their carbon release track record. The major problem of investing in bio fuel that has not been fully addressed is that, lack of skills and innovative technology in the field could create a culture of mono-cropping, and as a consequence, retail prices of common commodities would greatly increase. The U. S target of using the Latin America for the growth of bio fuel quota in order to maintain their uneconomical way of living was seen as a different type of the United States of Americas imperialism of the area. Most of the developing countries are bound to be adversely affected by the changes.
The conventional traditions and cultures in most countries have been seen to emphasize so much on food crop cultivation. People have so much respect for their food crops that the long lasting campaign by the developed countries has been unable to suppress their love for food crop cultivation compared to cash crops for fuel (Newton 2003). Though the investment in bio fuel is an attractive venture, it is very expensive for the developing nations because it calls for investment into new technology from scratch. It has been predicted that implementing the bio fuel plan may leave a common person 30% poorer and therefore unable to deal with the problem in the current economic situation (Mintzer 1992).
These conclusions are based on the argument that new technology is expensive plus the fact that more farm land would be required for cash crop farming to produce raw material for bio fuel like the sugar cane, oil plants and bio gas animal ranches. It estimated that involvement in bio fuel production would cost over $ 553 Trillion. The decision to take the necessary steps towards solving the inevitable climate crisis of global warming was very critical. The issues of global warming on the other hand presented a challenging opportunity for research, technology innovation and entrepreneur investment (Newton et al 2005). Global warming has presents an equilibrium situation.
People do not take into account all the facts around the subject and hence consider the problem on wrong postulations. In order to save the world, the cost should not be an issue because the benefits are very obvious. However the threat to food security is the major concern because food is a necessity. The use of electricity in homes as an alternative to carbon gas fuels is very efficient and most ethical and environmental friendly energy source as there are no emissions into the atmosphere and also there is little environmental destruction (Campbell & Reece 2005). Conclusion The use of alternative energy which is ethical and environmental friendly became a concern because of global warming effects and depletion of sources.
The accompanying price increase also pushes for the need of alternatives with high efficiency especially in the automotive industry. The ethical and environmental friendly has created more room for technology industry to develop hybrid vehicles and other machinery to use bio fuel and electric automotive to use electricity. Other power sources include flywheels, fuel cells and ultra-capacitors. Biomass and hydrogen being low carbon emitters are not workable alternatives to fossil fuel. Nuclear power and carbon capture and storage also present low carbon alternative though not the best solution.
Al Gore. (2006). An inconvenient truth. Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What we Can Do about it. Rodale Berger J. J (1998). Charging Ahead.The Business of Renewable Energy and what it Means for America. University of California Press Campbell N. A & Reece J. B (2005) Biology. Pearson. Benjamin Cummings Jackson R. M (2006). Annual Editions: Global Issues. Global Issues 06/07. McGraw-Hill Higher Education Littell M. (2005).
Science. Integrated Course 2. McDougal Littell Mintzer I. M (1992). Confronting Climate Change. Risks, Implications and Responses. Stockholm Environment Institute. Cambridge University Press Newton L. H (2003). Ethics and Sustainability. Sustainable Development and the Moral Life. Prentice Hall Newton L. H Dillingham C. K & Choly (2005). Watersheds 4. Ten Cases in Environmental Ethics. Thomson Wadsworth