The spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has not only revealed the inherent, exploitative economic failures of an unfettered free market, but also, the environmental failures of capitalism as decreased fossil-fuel activity has cleared the air pollution in Asia, and canals in Italy. Yet there has been a rising online sentiment pinning global environmental deterioration on to inherent human nature –when the global temperatures were normal in a pre-industrial era. ‘Mother nature is waking up, humans are the virus,’ pseudo-woke Twitter users share, amassing hundreds of thousands of likes and engagement.The idea that humans are a virus that can not coexist with nature absolves neoliberalism of its decades of market failures, it absolves the 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions of their blame for global warming. Native Americans have conserved and coexisted nature for thousands of years. The problem is not humanity, it’s neoliberalism, which through deregulation and resistance against a transition towards a 70-85% renewable system, demands the perpetuation of an economy run on fossil fuels. The environment has been the sacrificial lamb of neoliberalism since the 19th century — forgoing environmental health in favor of industrial progress.

Environmental History: Normal CO2 Levels in The Pre-Industrial Era 

The nihilist, defeatist blaming of environmental deterioration on “humanity” is an intellectually lazy cop-out. It’s a way to absolve neoliberalism of its responsibility in creating the environmental crisis and absolve ourselves of the responsibility of transforming the global energy industry. Producing fossil fuel emissions isn’t a natural trait of humanity — it’s a trait of capitalism, deregulation, and the fossil fuel industry. There is another way. To simply throw our hands in the air and declare, “oh well, humans are evil destructors,” is the easy and dishonest option. It is ecofascism.

Environmental history shows that humans — who have lived on the planet for 200,000 years — only managed to create a global warming crisis in the last 150 years with the advent of industrial capitalism. How has human activity harmed the environment? The most pressing environmental problems of our time—such as deforestation, water pollution, and global warming—are the results of human activities.

The pre-industrial climate is proof that environmental destruction is not a feature of humanity, but rather, a feature of post-industrial neoliberalism. Human interaction with nature since the post-revolutionary age of fossil fuels from 1800-present, has been primarily destructive. The Industrial Revolution marked the start of the gradual rise in CO2 emissions. Studies have found that climate change signs first appeared as early as the 1830s.

Human influence aside, internal and external forces such as internal heat transfer within the Earth, volcanic eruptions, and variability in the amount of energy emitted by the Sun cause the climate to vary. Scientists, taking this into account, define the pre-industrial baseline relative to 1850-1900. This is why climate accords like the Paris Agreement seek to limit the global average temperature to below 2℃ above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels.

Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, and the IPCC forecasts that we will reach the 1.5°C threshold between 2030 and 2052 because we will not meet the net-zero CO2 emissions goal by 2050 by dropping 45% from the 2010 levels by 2030. To achieve this renewable energy would need to supply 70-85% of electricity use by 2050, but we will only reach a 31% of world electricity market share by 2040 despite  400% growth.

So no, humans are not the problem. Fossil fuels and bad policies are.

Environmental History:  Native Americans’ Conservation Practices

Ecofascists forget that post-industrial environmental destruction is not an inherent human trait. 

Native Americans have managed to thrive off, and conserve the natural environment for thousands of years because their culture dictates so. Native Americans view themselves as cohabitants with the natural world, not a distinct wilderness to be conquered and paved over as European settlers did. Even a U.N.-backed report found that Native Americans’ lands are degrading less quickly than in other areas.

Native Americans continue contributing to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem health.Their cultural beliefs have been long observed by sociologists like Durkheim who saw how Aborigines’ lifestyles were intimately connected to nature (Durkheim 1915). While they did not actually consider nature to be divine, cultural beliefs such as their totems (sacred animal symbols), stood for the clan which all protected the environment.

While global lumber companies see the Amazon rainforest as a profitable commodity to be harvested, environmentalists see the world’s most biodiverse sanctuary to be left untouched, and indigenous tribes see a home that enables their physical being. Environmentalism and unfettered capitalism are mutually exclusive.

It was then that ecological imperialism was brought to the Americas to reap destruction, then exacerbated with Manifest Destiny as the frontier kept being pushed west. Europeans committed wanton environmental destruction, slaughtered wildlife, burned forests, and tamed the wilderness for the sake of “civilization.” This is because European settlers came from individualist, capitalist culture that valued individual wealth that took the biblical admonition to exert dominion over the earth as one of destruction. The term “wilderness,” was often used by English settlers to describe forests. Thus, with the founding of the first European settlement, Jamestown, 75% of forests have been destroyed since 1600.

It was only with the rise of modern capitalism with the Industrial Revolution and transition away from an agricultural economy, was it that forests were destroyed for lumber, mountains leveled for coal mining, holes punctured to extract oil, rfields smothered in cement, and smokestacks blacken the skies. The new technology was harnessed to transform natural resources into social goods for economic profit. One seeks destruction for profit, the other protection for the future of the planet.

Capitalism stole 1.5 billion acres of natural land from Native Americans since 1784 and turned it into an urban, strip mall, consumerist hellscape — or the modern industrial economy. This is why Indigenous people still fight to protect their sacred land from further colonization at the forces of oil pipelines, logging, and more.

Neoliberalism Is The Problem, Not Human Nature

Wow… Earth is recovering

– Air pollution is slowing down
– Water pollution is clearing up
– Natural wildlife returning home

Coronavirus is Earth’s vaccine

We’re the virus— Tom (@ThomasSchuIz) March 17, 2020

One hundred corporations are responsible for 71% of all global greenhouse gas emissions yet ecofascist drivel regularly garners 200,000+ likes on Twitter. This is your brain on wokeism. It’s simple, easy, and it absolves neoliberalism and our ability to usher in a renewable age of all responsibility. When we don’t identify capitalism as the problem we ignore solutions.

Neoliberalism fuels global warming, not inherent human nature. Neoliberalism is a liberal political ideology favoring free-market, laissez-faire capitalism, that was popularized in the 1970s. It’s reaped destruction through ecological imperialism all around the globe. It results in natural state-owned resources being commoditized and privatized like in Peru. Neoliberalism is an ideological force which has seized natural resources and led to deforestation in pursuit of development and modern infrastructure.

Neoliberalism has brought us deregulation, and the iron triangle of corporatist fossil fuel lobbying that’s bringing the planet to its death bed. 

When we found out about climate change 30 years ago, we didn’t tax fossil fuels to reduce consumption, we didn’t tax or cap carbon emissions, and the government didn’t invest heavily in renewable energy or force companies to do so. In fact, we knew about it since 1958 when chemist Charles David Keeling found that each year evidenced a greater concentration of CO2 than the last, and it corresponded with global increases in the burning of fossil fuels. In the pre-industrial era, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 held steady thousands of years but over the last 50 years it has increased by 20%.

Free market capitalism will never control negative externalities of the fossil fuel industry — that is the government’s job. Instead, this administration has engaged in the opposite approach — taking 142 climate deregulation steps so far. Just today, in midst of a pandemic, the EPA and NHTSA finalized a rule rolling back vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and corporate fuel economy standards. We’ve not only withdrawn from the moderate Paris Climate Accord but also canceled a requirement for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions, partially repealed an Obama-era rule limiting methane emissions on public lands, replaced the Clean Power Plan, and more.

How can you fight a threat without naming it? Neoliberalism. Deregulation. Fossil fuels. Rampant laissez-faire capitalism. Those are the problems, not inherent human nature. Environmental breakdown is also a fundamental feature not a ‘bug’ of capitalism.

A 1.5°C warming of the globe poses the biggest existential threat facing our growing population today, yet baseline forecasts show despite many “plastic straw bans,” climate protest and global policy inaction — we won’t cause an upheaval of the fossil-fuel energy system to prevent this by 2050. Coastal cities will flood, oceans will acidify, crop yields will plummet and we’ll fail to meet the 70% rise in food demand by 2050.

We need to meet a 27% increase in global energy demand by 2040 while providing electricity access in developing nations where 1 billion lack electricity and face barriers to renewable energy attainment. On our current baseline trajectory, renewables will only make up 31% of the energy mix by 2040, as oil and gas will continue to supply over 50% of energy demand. 

Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, and the IPCC forecasts that we will reach the 1.5°C threshold between 2030 and 2052 because we will not meet the net-zero CO2 emissions goal by 2050 by dropping 45% from the 2010 levels by 2030.

To achieve this renewable energy would need to supply 70-85% of electricity use by 2050, but we will only reach 31% of world electricity market share by 2040 despite 400% growth. As the world population reaches 9 billion by 2040, we will face a global energy and climate crisis as global energy demand increases 27%, 25% in developing nations, 1 billion continue to lack electricity access, and renewables compose only 31% of the energy mix. This will occur while fossil fuels will continue to reign  at over 50% of energy demand as we will witness a 41% increase in gas demand.

Capitalism has rapidly destroyed the global climate in just the last 200 years because it demands the commoditization and destruction of natural resources for economy profit, thereby continuing its reign of imperialist ecological terrorism. Embracing ecofascism and defeatism does nothing but secure future generations’ struggle against a wilderness that won’t be dominated any longer. We need a Green New Deal with at least 70-85% renewable energy.

Complete climate change mitigation is an alternative forecast that overlooks carbon-reduction solutions such as sequestration and nanotechnology that will be necessary to meet a 27% increase in global energy demand, provide electricity access in developing nations where 1 billion lack electricity and face barriers to renewable energy attainment. On our current baseline trajectory, renewables will only make up 31% of the energy mix by 2040, as oil and gas will continue to supply over 50% of energy demand. Therefore, it’s imperative that we implement the carbon-reduction technologies often ignored in the hard-line “Green New Deal” conversation, in conjunction with renewable energy in countries without economic and political barriers.

Effects of a 1.5°C Increase in Global Temperature

A 1.5°C warming of the globe poses the biggest existential threat facing our growing population today, yet baseline forecasts show despite many “plastic straw bans,” climate protest and global policy inaction — we won’t cause an upheaval of the fossil-fuel energy system to prevent this by 2050. Coastal cities will flood, oceans will acidify, crop yields will plummet and we’ll fail to meet the 70% rise in food demand by 2050. Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, and the IPCC forecasts that we will reach the 1.5°C threshold between 2030 and 2052 because we will not meet the net-zero CO2 emissions goal by 2050 by dropping 45% from the 2010 levels by 2030. To achieve this renewable energy would need to supply 70-85% of electricity use by 2050, but we will only reach a 31% of world electricity market share by 2040 despite  400% growth.

Moreover, our oceans absorb about 30% of CO2 and preventing acidification. When it mixes with water it becomes carbonic acid by releasing H+ ions which makes the ocean increasingly acidic over time. If average emissions continue at the current rate the average pH of the ocean will drop from 8.2 to 7.8 by 2094. This will impact many species of marine life such as pteropods, corals, and other hard-shelled species such as phytoplankton which absorb CO2 and can destroy the food chain if they go extinct. Oceans will eventually become highly acidic and they will be able to hold less CO2 and species will become extinct.

As the world population reaches 9 billion by 2040, we will face a global energy and climate crisis as global energy demand increases 27%, 25% in developing nations, 1 billion continue to lack electricity access, and renewables compose only 31% of the energy mix. This will occur while fossil fuels will continue to reign  at over 50% of energy demand as we will witness a  41%  increase in gas demand. Oil demand will reach 106 million BPD (IEA), oil consumption 225 quadrillion British thermal units, and natural gas 180 units (EIA). This increased demand coupled with a slow renewable energy implementation will cause an energy conundrum on how to supply it under carbon-dioxide constraints. Per the IEA’s 2019 World Energy Outlook, demand will rise 1.3% each for the next 20 years and will exacerbate greenhouse emission levels and will climb by 6% through 2040. Alternative forecasts based on ambitious climate policy action outlined by Green New Deal style have no current plan going forth the next 20 years. 

Fossil Fuel Emission Reduction and Carbon Sequestration

This increased fossil fuel demand in a future world populated by 9 billion where people still lack access implores us to address climate change with action and not become blind-sided by the long-term goal of a renewable energy system transformation; but to instead invest in mitigating CO2-reduction technologies. Carbon-dioxide emissions account for 80% of all emissions, and CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas produced by the burning of fossil fuels that has steadily increased since the late 1950s. but they can be drastically reduced through carbon-capturing technology such as sequestration and nanotechnology. The carbon-dioxide sequestration process injects injects carbon captured from coal plants into the earth. However, this effect is limited since its mainly been used in laboratories in small quantities.

According to the baseline trends, oil and natural gas will continue supplying over 50% of energy demand in 2040, as global demand grows 27%, while around 1 billion people will lack access to electricity. Oil consumption will reach 225 quadrillion British thermal units in 2040 (up from 200), and natural gas consumption will reach 180 units according to the EIA (up from 130).  The price of crude oil will rise from $52 to $112 per barrel per the Global Energy Institute. Meeting demand in a cost-efficient way is the basis of nanotech applications. Based on the nanotechnology industry’s rapid growth the past two decades and increasing NNI budget ($343.1 million in 2019), the industry will continue to witness steady growth. Oil companies like Shell and BP are working with research institutions to implement these technologies in their production. 

Energy demand will increase by 27% by 2040 according to the EIA³. Meeting this demand under the world’s shrinking fossil-fuel supply without increasing environmental degradation is a key issue of this century.  Scientists estimate we will have to lower carbon-dioxide emissions by as much as 80% by 2050 ⁴ to prevent a further increase in global temperatures. It is both economically and existentially pivotal to implement renewable energy resources to meet this increased consumption. Achieving this while not limiting development in developing countries creates a conundrum that can be ameliorated by CO2 emission reduction and renewable energy.

Nanotechnology 

One solution to meeting this 27% increase in energy demand under CO2 constraints in a baseline 2040 future with only 31% renewables is nanotechnology. Nanotechnology solutions such as nanoparticle enhanced oil recovery, engineered porous minerals, nanotubes, and nano-computerised tomography to explore oil reservoirs can maximize efficiency and lower costs to meet this demand. Production can be increased in an environmentally cleaner way through the employment of nanomaterials for environmental remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater, nanosensors can detect greenhouse gas emission levels, and  carbon capture nanoscale membranes can trap exhaust from energy production sites such as power plants. 

Growing investment in nanotechnology has already decreased fossil fuel emissions and the NNI budget has increased vastly to $343.1 million in 2019. Oil companies like Shell and BP now implement nanotechnology in their energy production through the use of nanomaterials, carbon-capturing nanomembranes, and nanocatalysts. Oil production has not peaked thanks to EOR through nanotechnology applications. This has all caused the carbon-dioxide emission rates to fall substantially. Big companies like CO2 solutions are influential stakeholders that seek to limit greenhouse gases through carbon-capture technologies that remove exhaust from our power plants.

Not only does nanotechnology reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it helps meet the 27% increase in energy demand at a time when peak oil production looms on our horizon. The possibility of peak oil production has frightened many for decades, but an estimate by the EIA believes that reaching peak oil as soon as 2022 is a possibility. When it would occur, production would decline at 3% per year while demand would increase by 3% per year. The Low Oil Resource also projects tight oil production until 2022 then a decline until 2050. Nanotechnology, and its efficient applications in enhanced oil recovery can help prevent situations of low oil supply. Nanoparticles can maximize extraction by reporting what paths oil takes below ground form the injection well to the production well.

Nanotechnology can prevent this dismal alternative forecast, and help meet the future energy demand reliant on fossil fuels in 2040 in an efficient, cost-effective manner that emits less pollutants, cleans up organic chemicals from groundwater, and VOCs from air through nanomaterial, nanomembranes, and nanocatalyst applications. Developments in nanotechnology in the gas and oil industry lower CO2 emissions through EOR, the production of  nano-tubes, nano-sensors for air pollution monitoring and carbon-capture nanoscale membranes, thereby reducing the negative environmental impact of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel-based energy will be produced more efficiently due to nano fluids and other nanotechnology applications in the enhaced oil recovery process. The Department of Energy, oil industry and energy consumers should continue advocating for these carbon-dioxide reducing technologies.

Renewables

 By 2040 renewables will have the fastest growth rate, they have increased 67 percent from 2000 to 2016⁵, only supply 31% of energy⁶. The biggest source will be biomass — a health hazard used in the developing world. Wind (8% a year), solar, and biofuels will grow rapidly but will only be 15% at most of energy. While we will fail to meet net-zero emissions by 2050 and likely won’t implement an energy system based on 70-85% renewables, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to surpass the 31% forecast and reduce emissions through the employment of hydro fuel cell, solar, wind, and bio-energy in addition to a smart distributed energy grid.

 Renewable energy technologies such as solar energy, wind energy, hydrogen fuel cell, bioenergy from algae only make up 31% of all energy in our baseline 2040 future. Although they have grown at an incremental but slow rate they have been impactful on consumers, transportation, and the economy. Low-carbon sources led by solar PV supply over half of the growth. Oil flattened out in the past decade, and coal has fallen as expected by the IEA’s 2019 WEO. Solar PV energy leads renewable energy electricity generation. Growing investment in nanotechnology has decreased fossil fuel emissions and the NNI budget has increased vastly from the $343.1 million NNI budget from two decades ago. Oil companies like Shell and BP now implement nanotechnology in their energy production through the use of nanomaterials, carbon-capturing nanomembranes, and nanocatalysts. Oil production has not peaked thanks to EOR through nanotechnology applications. This has all caused the carbon-dioxide emission rates to fall substantially. Big companies like CO2 solutions are influential stakeholders that seek to limit greenhouse gases through carbon-capture technologies that remove exhaust from our power plants.

The Smart Grid

 An opportunity for the future of the electricity grid is the smart grid — where utilities can better communicate with smart homes and consumers and measure homes’ electricity consumption more frequently to lower energy consumption and thereby emissions. Initially, the grid was designed in for utilities to deliver electricity to user homes on a small scale, then billed once a month but energy demand has increased exponentially since then. The one-way communication model of this initial system makes it difficult to meet increasing energy demand. Whereas smart grids enable consumers to manage electricity use to more evenly distribute electricity use. reduce power outages caused by weather and when demand outpaces supply. This is achieved by measuring energy fluctuations using smart sensors, then by rerouting power delivery. Ultimately this aids end-users through lowered production-costs and subsequently, smaller bills. This smart grid innovation is an economic benefit which helps end-user experiences.

The Future of Solar Energy

Solar energy is another big player in the future renewable energy industry with strong potential to replace a large percentage of fossil fuel’s market. Moreover, distributed energy has the most potential to increase through on-site solar installations of solar crystalline photovoltaics panels. They are the most efficient and deliver power to end-users. 

Enough energy from the sun hits the earth every hour to power the earth for an entire year. The photons from the light strike the cell in the panel’s energy field, free electrons, and the electrons create electric current which then travels through an electrical circuit powering electrical devices or sending electricity to the grid. PV devices can power small electronics, homes, and businesses. They’re also the most cost-efficient for setting up a large-scale system.

Thin film solar panels are also an innovative option for distributed power generation but they’re less efficient (11-13%) than PV which has 15-20% efficiency. They’re made with solar cells containing light-absorbing layers 350 times smaller than PV panels and thereby have less carbon offset in their production. Passive solar homes are also a good distributed power generation option but are more costly to be implemented on a large consumer scale. It’s easier to install PV panels than to redesign people’s entire homes.

Wind Energy

Wind power is the fastest growing, most efficient, cost-effective, and consumer-affordable energy source. For this reason, it  has the potential to expand its market share across the globe to developing nations. It has grown around 26% over the past 18 years and forecasts predict constant large-scale growth. Wind energy industry saw a record 8% US growth in 2018, and it is predicted to employ around 1.5 million people by 2020. Surpassing the estimate of 31% renewable energy to achieve a substantial cut in CO2 emissions, provide affordable energy world wide, and meet increasing demand of a world population over 9 billion will only be made possible through offshore and on-shore energy farms.

Wind energy is the most efficient form of renewable energy, producing  1,164% efficiency in comparison to geothermal’s 514%, hydropower’s 317%, nuclear’s 290%, and solar’s 207%⁷. It is created by harnessing wind to generate electricity. Wind turbines capture the wind’s kinetic energy and rotate it turning it to mechanical energy. The rotation turns an internal shaft on a gearbox and spins a generator that produces electricity.

Efficiency is calculated by the cost of fuel, production, and dealing with environmental damage. The 1,164% figure represents the percentage of energy input retained when converting fuel to electricity. Moreover, it is the least expensive renewable energy source to produce, with an average cost of $0.06 per kWh while other technologies such as solar panels cost  $0.10 per kWh at the lowest⁸.

 By 2050, 25-30 percent¹⁰ of global power could come from harnessing the wind (up from 3%¹¹ in 2016.) This would help meet the 28% increase in energy consumption under CO2 emission constraints. Implementing this level of energy involves overcoming problems hindering energy deployment such as cost, resource availability, and policy decisions such as tax credits.

Wind energy alone generated over $143 billion in private investment over the last decade. It produced $7.3 billion in public health benefits by cutting pollutants. This while only being the third most popular at only 18% of renewable energy consumption out of the 10% of total US renewable energy consumption. Overall, renewable energy is the fastest-growing energy source in the United States, increasing 67 percent from 2000 to 2016. They made up almost 15 percent of net U.S. electricity generation in 2016, with the majority coming from hydropower (6.5 percent) and wind power (5.6 percent). Renewables made up 24 percent of global electricity generation in 2014. That’s expected to rise to 31 percent by 2040¹⁵. The most efficient increase will come from wind and hydropower.

The wind industry has grown around 26 percent per year over the past 18 year. This is because wind power is the least-cost option for adding power capacity to the grid. Moreover, this industry currently employs around 600,000¹⁷. That figure could rise to around 1.5 million by 2020 and exceed 2 million jobs by 2030.

Furthermore, two federal tax credits encourage renewable energy projects: the production tax credit (PTC) and the investment tax credit (ITC). The former, is available to renewable energy technologies, and wind, geothermal,  and closed-loop biomass, receive a 2.3 ¢/kWh ($23/MWh) credit for all electricity generated during the first 10 years of operation²⁰. Wind, with an average total system cost of $64/MWh, the PTC yields a 34 percent cost reduction. Overall, the PTC alone drives about $15 billion per year in private investment in the U.S.

A two megawatt wind turbine in a year can sometimes only produce 7,884 MW out of the theoretical maximum of 17,520 MW-hours due to wind strength inconsistency. This results in lost output, and only a 45% capacity factor. Offshore wind farms provide stronger, steadier winds and output. Moreover, the Department of Energy found the U.S. could develop a total of 86 GW of offshore wind projects by 2050. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that the technical resource potential for U.S. offshore wind is more than 2,000 gigawatts of capacity. A single offshore wind turbine of 3.6 MW at 90% capacity can power 2,584 average U.S. homes annually.

Evidently, offshore wind farms produce twice as much energy as land-based wind farms while maintaining the same advantages. They deliver large-scale clean energy to fulfill the future 28% increase in energy demand and would rapidly exceed the 25% wind energy fraction of total energy consumption by 2050.  The wind sector has grown 25% per year over the past 18 years, employs 600,000 Americans, yields 1,164% efficiency, has the lowest average cost of $0.06 per kWh out of all renewable energy sources. It has produced $143 billion in private investment will continue to yield large profitability with the help of PTC and ITC incentives. Vind hopes to power the future in a sustainable and efficient way.

The Future of Vehicles

Hydrofuel cell cars are CO2 emission free, but they are pose an initial cost-efficiency challenge.Some estimate that hydrogen costs $18/million BTU while a fossil fuel like natural gas costs $6/million BTU. From the cleaner electrolysis process with electricity at 5 cents/kWh it will cost $28/million BTU — 1.5 times higher than producing it from natural gas.Additionally, the cost of building this new energy infrastructure for hydrogen cars would be a large investment.

As of 2018, only 2.1% of vehicles sold were electric vehicles. While that is a record number signaling growth, it’s only a small percentage of all vehicles sold. The transition to electric vehicles will be a slow one, the largest forecasts expect electric vehicles to take up 10% of total new vehicle sales by 2025. Electricity and hydrogen powered cars are likely to see growth when manufacturing prices fall and more consumers can afford the new technology. The process of manufacturing is already more efficient since electric motors don’t require the same team of workers to produce different capacity engines (V8, etc.) Manufacturers also regain 1/3rd of the vehicle chassis by replacing technical combustion engines with electric motors.

The Future of Biofuel

By 2030, bio energy production will rise and we will move towards a slightly more sustainable economy with a wider use of renewable resources. The transition to a bio-based economy will be powered by cellulosic ethanol and algae-based bio energy, not corn ethanol. Biofuels can be used to build chemicals, materials, energy, and both internal combustion engines. Bio fuels have met some resistance as some argue that they are more costly to produce and less efficient by pointing to the net negative energy output. In reality, all fuels have a negative output — the energy in the oil pre-production isn’t counted.

Companies like Vertigro and Wageningen UR are already building towards this sustainable future of energy by producing algae-based bio-energy. Vertigro seeks to produce over 20,000 gallons of bio-fuel on one acre. They believe with the amount of farm space of 1/10 the size of New Mexico we could produce enough fuel to fill the U.S.’ need for oil.

Bio industrialism will also fuel this transition by innovating while lowering manufacturing costs and increasing output to build a more sustainable future. Wageningen believes the transition to a bio-energy based future will be built by the green raw materials, emission free production processes and bio-based products they produce.

Carbon-pricing Schemes

Over 40 countries have put a price on carbon, through direct taxes on fossil fuels or cap-and-trade programs. In Britain, coal use plummeted after the introduction of a carbon tax in 2013. Carbon pricing schemes are government policies designed to put a price on the carbon for the negative external costs produced by carbon emissions in order to reduce them. They come in two forms — an ETS ‘cap-and-trade system’ and a carbon tax. An ETS caps the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions and lets industries with low emissions sell their extra allowances to those with larger emissions. Supply and demand is created in this way and subsequently a market price for greenhouse gas emissions. We should push for carbon taxes which set a direct negative externality tax on greenhouse gas emissions for costs paid by the public through crop or health damage. 

Summary

 Renewable energy technologies such as solar energy, wind energy, hydrogen fuel cell, bioenergy from algae only make up 31% of all energy in our baseline 2040 future, but carbon-sequestering nanotechnology has shown promising results in reducing CO2 emissions in a developing world economy of increasing fossil fuel demand. We currently consume over 11 billion tonnes of oil yearly. While oil reserves are used up at a rate of over 4 billion tonnes a year, at this rate our oil deposits will run out within about the next 53 years. Energy demand (calculated by through GDP and population growth), will grow by 28% by 2040 according to the EIA. If we do not implement renewable energy technologies and increase efficiency our consumption of energy (oil) will exceed production which peaked in the 1980s. 

The total carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels increased by 1.6% in 2017 to 36.2 gigatonnes CO2. CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas produced by the burning of coal and other fossil fuels (oil and natural gas). Atmospheric CO2 levels have steadily increased since the late 1950s.This impacts climate change as elevated levels of heat-trapping CO2 in the atmosphere create what is known as a greenhouse effect. Thereby, trapping heat from escaping the earth. In turn, ocean temperature rises and causes climate change. About 40% of the CO2 emissions in the U.S. come from coal alone. We can’t simply eradicate carbon – (80% of CO2 emissions) – because it’s our main energy production source, but rather reduce emissions through carbon-capture technology such as sequestration.

It’s an ambitious myth that climate change will be mitigated below the 1.5 C level by 2050 through a 80% CO2 reduction. Forecasts estimate that we will reach at most 31% renewable energy not the 70-85% goal. Over 50% of the energy mix will continue to be dominated by oil and gas as energy demand rises 27%, and 45% in developing countries with 1 billion people who will still lack electricity access. Methods to reduce and sequester CO2 emissions from fossil fuels as their demand rises with the growing 9 billion future population must be implemented. Nanotechnology can aid in this goal along with carbon sequestration to prevent energy supply shortages. Furthermore, we must heavily invest in the most powerful renewable energy in countries without barriers to access. Wind energy is the most efficient form,  producing 1,164% efficiency, it generates the most kWh at a low cost of production. Greenhouse gas emission reducing technology in conjunction with solar energy, electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles we can surpass this 31% figure to prevent increased global temperatures due to a 27% increase in energy demand, and can help meet the demand.We only have a finite supply of fossil fuels that is increasingly become limited in supply as the world population reaches over 9.8 billion by 2050. Fueling the future is a question of both meeting demand and meeting it sustainably. 

Per baseline estimates, if we don’t implement these solutions, by 2040 the world will face an energy and global climate crisis as the 9 billion world population has increased energy demand by 27%, 45% in developing nations, 1 billion continue to lack electricity access and renewables have experienced slow growth — only making up 31% of the energy mix. Oil demand will reach 106 million BPD as projected by the IEA. Oil consumption will reach 225 quadrillion British thermal units, and natural gas 180 units (EIA). Despite a rise in renewable energy, fossil fuels will continue to supply over 50% of energy demand. The increased demand coupled with a slow renewable energy implementation has caused an energy conundrum on how to supply it under carbon-dioxide constraints. We will fulfill the IEA’s 2019 World Energy Outlook, and demand will rise 1.3% each of the next 20 years and exacerbated greenhouse emission levels. Due to this, carbon dioxide emissions will climb by 6% through 2040 and we will surpass the 1.5C constraint by 2050.