3 ms·
Renewable energy does deplete a lot of natural resources. Even assuming it is carbon neutral (it isn't). Even assuming we're still capable of constructing those
by phh 3y ago
Renewable energy does deplete a lot of natural resources. Even assuming it is carbon neutral (it isn't). Even assuming we're still capable of constructing those without fossil energy (we currently can't). Even assuming mining of various minerals is done without fossil energy (it isn't). Even assuming it doesn't require any mining (it does). It still largely requires "natural surfaces" where we have to disrupt local environments. It might be net benefits (offshore wind farms seem to improve diversity), but we have no renewable energy growth that doesn't require first for the natural resources to take a toll.
Don't get me wrong, I do think this is where we're heading towards, and I feel it's okay. But let's not be blind that yes even assuming we go towards fully renewable energy (still a big if, or rather very long when), any growth of energy consumption comes with a cost to natural resources.
- _8j50 3y agoUnless you speak of the supernatural, all resources are natural. Humans and our desire for energy is also natural. Ecosystem disruption is also natural since we are natural also. The only question is sustainability. More solar farms in the desert disrupts an ecosystem but not to the extent of causing species to die off or a food chain collapse that affects humans. More nuclear plants use more fissile material but at such low volume and extraction cost it's negligible. If you take a walk through the woods you'll step on grass and insects and cause damage. It's unnatural to live without interacting and harming flora and fauna and there are plenty of energy sources to sustain humans for millenia to come.