During the past few decades ecology became an increasingly popular topic and for good reason. Human population increased a lot since the middle age. More people need more space to live in and more resources which both shrink the habitat for most other lifeforms. Obviously that means there is less wildlife around than it used to be. This can lead to problems, because while we could get by without most species, some are very important for keeping the food chain going which also moves pollution back to us. So, it makes sense to care about our environment.
We are of course trying to lessen our negative impact on environment but just because the intentions are good it does not mean the action actually helps. People mostly talk about the energy sector, how bad the coal and oil power plants are. It mostly revolves around carbon dioxide, climate change and plant food, which is not really relevant here. Nature is about balance, both too little and too much of something have bad consequences for life. We know that these plants do pollute the air, there are issues with smog in our history, and while there is room for improvement, we will eventually run out of fossil fuels and will have to find alternatives anyway.
A lot of people who push for ecological solutions also really don’t like nuclear power plants. The reasons seem to be mainly fear of disasters and radioactive pollution. However, I see this as hypocritical. There are about four hundred nuclear power plants around, yet there were not that many notable accidents. The worst one is of course Chernobyl, which helped many people to early grave, but not too long after it became a haven for wildlife. The ugly fact is that nature is best off with no humans around. If your goal is to protect the environment, accidents at nuclear power plants shouldn’t bother you, because it just means you get another nature reserve.
The radiation has negative effects on wildlife too, but they can survive much higher doses than us. So, while you may not want to live anywhere near a nuclear waste dump, the animals there will be fine even if it starts to leak. There is also no need to worry about running out of nuclear fuel in this century, because there is roughly 5 million tons of economically accessible uranium and with current demand of roughly 70 thousand tons we are covered for 70 years (and more with fuel reuse and further deposit discovery). Finally, it needs to be said that uranium mining has negative impact on the environment, but that is true for pretty much all mining, including lithium mining.
Combustion engines in vehicles are another thing we are getting rid of, replacing them with electric engines. That is a good thing to do, but it is happening too soon. In 2020, 37% of Europe’s electricity was still generated by fossil fuels. That makes the switch to electric vehicles less effective than it should be. Add to it the extra energy and materials needed for battery manufacture and the car has to drive around for quite a while before it starts to make a difference.
Now to what we are adding – solar, wind and hydro power plants. Solar panels are fine, as long as they are put on roofs instead of on farmland. Wind turbines take up space, have a tendency to kill bats and birds, but there are ways how to improve on that and, unlike solar panels, they work during the night. The real issue here is that both of these have unstable output, so we need to build more of them than what we would normally need and add energy storage. However, when the push started for these power plants, the available batteries were way crappier than now and considering how much power a country needs, a viable solution for energy storage may still be some years away. Something that could store power well and was already in use years ago is pumped storage hydropower. Unfortunately it requires a suitable location and can take long to build. Similarly, other types of hydro plants also require a good location.
And what else are we building? How about things we don’t need. Like a 5G mobile network, denser, faster and with better support for smart devices. I don’t know about you, but so far I was doing fine with current internet speeds and without any smart home appliances. It is supposed to be more energy efficient, but it still means producing heaps of new wireless stations and moving them to places. Similarly, the thousands of satellites Starlink is launching also seem as unnecessary to me. And cryptocurrency, cool idea, but was it necessary to waste all that power?
Then we got the effort wasted on pipe dream projects like Hyperloop and completely unfeasible ideas or outright scams, attracting people with their save the environment message. It would be less bad, if at least the government was not throwing money at it.
I almost forgot about the Covid pandemic. That also has shown how seriously the environment protection is taken. We produced billions of testing kits, vaccines and masks to fight an illness which was danger only to the chronically ill and very old. The first year I could understand, nobody knew what to expect, but the second year is inexcusable. There were some benefits, like working from home which means less commuting, but on the other hand the demand for electronics and home deliveries went up. There were less flights, but aviation has only a minor share of the emissions. I’m not saying we shouldn’t treat the ill, but it makes sense for ecologists to criticize attempts to save every life for any cost. How many of them did that?
Most importantly we should make our economy more energy efficient, because the most environmentally friendly kilowatt-hour is the one that we did not produce. That means products which are designed to be repairable, so they last a while, instead of the current practice of planned obsolescence. Transportation of goods also requires energy, so local products should be preferred where appropriate. Another big energy hog is heating, heat pumps can help with that.
The nuclear power plants must keep running and it is not a bad idea to build some more, because they have almost zero emissions during operation and reliable power output that does not require energy storage. It takes long to do that but the same applies to any kind of energy storage of sufficient capacity that would cover solar and wind power plants. However, we can’t simply go all nuclear, because the plant’s output can’t be quickly regulated to meet the power demand changes during the day.
Solar and wind energy can start with small stations at private properties while they and the battery technology mature. We don’t have to wait for maturing of hydropower storage though, so let’s work on that right away.
The goal is to first replace most of fossil fuel power generation, starting with coal. Only when we are getting close to that it makes sense to start pushing vehicle manufacturers towards electricity. Once there is enough of nuclear power, the rest will be filled up by renewables to get rid of all the remaining fossils. After that, the renewables can start to slowly replace nuclear, or maybe by then we will already have the first working thermonuclear power plant.
Unfortunately, this might be more of a what could have been that what can be. Since the nineties, the number of nuclear power plants is stagnating. If we have continued building them instead, we might have gotten rid of coal completely by now.
This is not just about governments and companies though. While one person has no noticeable effect, when a million of them does the same thing it will leave a mark. If you really want to help the environment, the simplest way of doing that is buying less stuff that you don’t really need and keeping what you have for longer. It is hard to believe you are "environmentally conscious" when you buy a new iPhone every year. Fashion exists just to motivate consumers, some cheap clothes will hide your privates just as well as those from a famous brand. You can spend the saved money on your health or keep them for the future. As demand goes down, the companies will also have to produce less, which lessens their impact on the environment.
In case you want to be more active about it, be wary of projects that promise too much. If it seems too good to be true, like a new product which is ten times better than existing solutions, it probably is. Search for some criticisms before you open your wallet. In the end, you can always go outside and plant a few trees.