It is not uncommon these days to come across tweets citing slick World Economic Forum videos showcasing new developments in the field of solar and wind energy, with exhortations like “We have the solutions. Let’s implement them.” In the narrative on climate change (or climate crisis, as it is more accurately being referred to of late), renewable energy is being viewed as the one-shot solution to everything that is wrong with the planet. This World Environment Day, I would like to argue for a more nuanced and cautious understanding of renewable energy.
Abandoning the concept of renewable energy
In an excellent article titled ‘Abandoning the concept of renewable energy‘ in Energy Policy earlier this year, authors Atte Harjane and Janne M. Korhonen argue in favour of re-framing the term “renewable energy”. The authors make a case for enhancing the vocabulary associated with climate change in general and renewable energy in particular, including through the identification of problems with the existing vocabulary.
The article discusses how, in the 1970s, “the nascent environmental movement cemented its attitude towards “good” and “bad” energy sources“:
“Irrespective of the precise social and political circumstances of the time, the battle lines were drawn: in practically all subsequent environmental discourse, energy sources have been divided between “good” (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, biomass, and with some reservations hydropower), “tolerable for time being” (small scale use of fossil fuels and peat), and “bad” – large-scale, centralized power plants, most notably nuclear power. By and large, these divisions have prevailed ever since, although realities of climate change have generally caused the environmental movement of today to reduce its 1980s-era tolerance of coal, gas and peat as “bridge” fuels to be used until such time as the world is ready for totally renewable energy system…”
In time, the authors note, renewable energy has come to signify not just a pathway for mitigating climate change and reduced pollution, but also that for economic growth, employment, and energy security (as articulated by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)).
The authors highlight that the automatic association of renewable energy with sustainability ought to be re-evaluated, since clinging to the concept in the format that it currently exists may even prove to be harmful to the efforts to combat climate change and promote sustainable development. Every type of energy production has its own unique societal and environmental impact – “renewable energy” sources are no exception. Some examples used by the authors are the mining of potentially scarce raw materials like tellurium and iridium for solar photovoltaics (PV), and the utilization of the land required to install renewable energy projects. The authors recommend classifying energy sources based on their carbon generation and combustion quotient.
The authors conclude: “More nuanced terminology may in itself not be a panacea nor the key to effective climate mitigation. It can, however, be a step in the right direction. The next steps should include, inter alia, more detailed empirical analysis and quantification of the costs and benefits of various truly low-carbon approaches. With this paper, we call upon the research community to develop and, perhaps most importantly, use in their outreach and communications more accurate concepts and descriptions to measure and communicate the desired policies and end-states, instead of relying on old concepts which, while widely used in common parlance, are increasingly removed from the reality. We are also calling for more attention to be paid to the “bait and switch” tactics used by politicians and industry lobbyists to sell questionable energy sources as “renewable”, and to the fossil fuel firms using renewables-compatibility as a marketing tool. We urgently need energy policies that are focused on emissions rather than problematic and tendentious renewability.”
Vocabulary matters
The article by Harjane and Korhonen discusses an important problem, and one that does not get adequate attention in the global narrative on sustainability. This stark framing of “renewable energy” as the benevolent saviour of the climate crisis is problematic in the same way as shying away from referring to the said climate crisis as a climate crisis. A few weeks ago, The Guardian updated its style guide to use scientifically precise terms that conveyed with greater accuracy the environmental crises facing the world (for example, “climate change” was replaced with “climate crisis”, and “global warming” was replaced with “global heating”). As responsible citizens of the world, researchers, and communicators, each of us has the responsibility to examine critically the solutions offered to the climate crisis, including going behind the very framing of these solutions. The term “renewable energy” should not, therefore, automatically, convey iron-clad sustainability solutions.
For example, in a recent development in India, energy generated by large hydroelectric projects, hitherto kept outside the scope of the term “renewable energy”, has been re-classified as renewable energy. The overnight “increase” on paper in India’s renewable energy capacity through such a change will ease the meeting of the target of 175GW of installed renewable energy capacity by 2022. But can the re-casting of a source of energy with the ostensibly positive label of “renewable” negate the socio-economic and environmental costs of this source of energy? The answer, as argued here, is no.
Life-cycle assessment
Energy generated from conventional sources like coal imposes obvious negative externalities on the planet, most prominently in the form of air pollution (the theme of World Environment Day today). But does this mean that non-conventional sources of energy like solar and wind are completely benign?
The life-cycle of a renewable energy project can be seen across stages such as planning, installation, maintenance, uninstallation, and disposal. The steps taken at each stage, should using viewed from a wide sustainability lens. Some of the externalities of using renewable energy technology include the clearing of large tracts of land (including forests), destruction of wildlife and biodiversity, the use of rare minerals for creating batteries and solar PV, and the generation of e-waste from used solar PV panels and storage batteries. Additionally, the construction and installation of any technology includes its own carbon footprint in the form of greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption. Definitionally, “renewable energy” does not convey much about the (invisible) costs of deploying the technology that this term encompasses. But the regulatory framework across countries should now start promoting a deeper quantitative and qualitative analysis of the true cost of all types of energy.
Semantics are important in the fight against climate change. Framing the problem and solution in binaries, and allowing terms to remain un-challenged, can lead to egregious misrepresentation. So, to re-phrase a popular phrase on social media: “We have the solutions. Let’s understand them better before we rush to implement them.”
India Environment Blog 