renewable energy opinion essay

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Farhad Manjoo

The Wind and Solar Boom Is Here

By Farhad Manjoo

Opinion Columnist

Listen to This Op-Ed

Just one word, Benjamin : Solar .

Well, actually, one more: Wind .

The sun, the air and the chemistry to bottle their limitless power — it’s looking more and more as if these constitute the world’s next great technological advance, a leap as life-changing for many of us as was aviation, the internet or, of course, plastics.

Faster than many thought possible, and despite long doubt about renewable energy’s practicality, a momentous transformation is now well underway. We are moving from a global economy fueled primarily by climate-warming fossil fuels to one in which we will cleanly pluck most of our energy out of water , wind and the fire in the sky.

People who study energy markets say that economics alone ensures our eventual transition to clean fuels, but that policy choices by the governments can speed it up. Last October, the International Energy Agency declared solar power to be the cheapest new form of electricity in many places around the world, and in particularly favorable locations, solar is now “the cheapest source of electricity in history.”

It can be difficult to muster much optimism about humanity’s capacity to address climate change, and I have argued before that it is wisest to look to the future with a pessimistic eye, if only to encourage urgent action toward collective problem-solving. (We are more likely to do something to solve our problems if we’re frank about how bad things might get.)

There are lots of reasons to cast doubt on the clean-energy future. Wind and solar still account for just a tiny fraction of the world’s energy production. Even their most enthusiastic supporters concede that much will need to change to realize the full potential of renewable energy. Over the coming decades consumers and businesses will have to adapt to many novel technologies, while governments will need to build new infrastructure and overhaul energy regulations built around fossil fuels.

Still, amid the general gloom of climate change, the clean-energy boom offers the rare glimmer not just of hope, but something more: excitement. The industry’s bold claims are bolstered by bolder trends. Over the last couple of decades experts have consistently underestimated the declines in price, the improvements in performance and the subsequent speed of adoption of renewable power.

Unlike fossil fuels — which get more expensive as we pull more of them from the ground , because extracting a dwindling resource requires more and more work — renewable energy is based on technologies that get cheaper as we make more. This creates a virtuous flywheel: Because solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and related technologies to produce clean energy keep getting cheaper, we keep using more of them; as we use more of them, manufacturing scale increases, cutting prices further still — and on and on.

Jenny Chase, who analyzes the solar power sector at BloombergNEF, an energy research firm, told me that when she started her job in 2005, her most optimistic scenario was that sunlight would eventually generate as much as 1 percent of the world’s electricity. At the time, solar power contributed essentially nothing to the global energy mix, so even a tiny fraction looked pretty good.

“I thought, well, it’ll be a small thing, but focusing my career on something that’s 1 percent of the world’s electricity, that’s all right,” she told me.

She was way off, and so were many others, including governmental agencies . Solar power surpassed 1 percent of global electricity generation in the middle of the last decade. Chase estimates that solar now accounts for at least 3 percent of the world’s electricity — that is, three times as much as she once thought possible.

In a forecast published late last year, Chase and her colleagues at BloombergNEF estimated that by 2050, 56 percent of the world’s electricity would be produced by wind and solar power. But she says that forecast is already out of date — it’s too low.

Others go further still. “The fossil fuel era is over,” declares Carbon Tracker Initiative , a nonprofit think tank that studies the economics of clean energy, in a new report . Kingsmill Bond, its energy strategist, told me that the transition to renewable energy will alter geopolitics and global economics on a scale comparable to that of the Industrial Revolution.

He cites one telling example to illustrate how and why. The world’s largest conventional oil field, Ghawar in Saudi Arabia , has the capacity to produce nearly four million barrels of oil per day. If you were to convert Ghawar’s annual oil output into electricity, you’d get almost one petawatt-hour of power per year. (That’s nearly enough to power Japan for a year; the world’s annual electrical energy demand is 27 petawatt-hours.)

The Ghawar oil field takes up a lot of space — about 3,000 square miles, around the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. But it soon might sound crazy to use that much sunny land for drilling oil. Bond estimates that if you put up solar panels on an area the size of Ghawar, you could now generate more than one petawatt-hour per year — more than you’d get from the oil buried under Ghawar.

But the oil will one day run out, while the sun will keep shining over Ghawar — and not just there, but everywhere else, too. This is the magic of the sun, as Bond explains: Only Saudi Arabia has a Ghawar, but with solar power almost every country in the world with enough space can generate one petawatt-hour of power (and without endangering the planet to boot).

It’s important to note that there remain hurdles in the way of a renewable-energy future. The most obvious one is the infrastructure required to take advantage of all this electric power — more robust power grids, for instance, and the transformation to electric power of everything from cars to container ships.

These problems are considerable, but solvable. In his upcoming book, “Electrify,” Saul Griffith, an inventor (and MacArthur fellow) who is a co-founder of an organization called Rewiring America , argues that “many of the barriers to a clean-energy future are systemic and bureaucratic, not technological.”

Griffith says that the transformation will be an economic bonanza — many analysts predict huge job creation and savings in energy prices from a switch to renewables. But if we want it in time to avert some of the most catastrophic predictions about a warming climate, we need to push the changes along even faster. Among other things, Griffith calls for a complete overhaul of our energy policies in order to reduce some of the regulatory costs of expanding renewable power.

What kinds of costs? Many small, unforeseen things. For instance, in much of the U.S., installing rooftop solar panels requires an extensive and expensive permitting process that substantially increases the price . Through streamlined rules , other countries have managed to greatly reduce such costs.

This won’t be easy; the fossil fuel industry is actively battling the rise of renewables. But at most, it can only slow things down. A carbon-free energy economy is coming whether oil and coal companies like it or not.

Office Hours With Farhad Manjoo

Farhad wants to chat with readers on the phone . If you’re interested in talking to a New York Times columnist about anything that’s on your mind, please fill out this form. Farhad will select a few readers to call.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here's our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

Farhad Manjoo became an Opinion columnist for The Times in 2018. Before that, they wrote the State of the Art column. They are the author of “True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society.” @ fmanjoo • Facebook

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

2. Public opinion on renewables and other energy sources

Americans’ concerns about climate change have put energy production of fossil fuels and the carbon gases these fuels emit at the center of public discussions about climate and the environment. Those debates coupled with long-standing economic pressures to decrease reliance on other countries for energy needs have raised attention to renewable forms of energy including solar and wind power.

Public opinion about energy issues is widely supportive of expanding both solar and wind power but more closely divided when it comes to expanding fossil fuel energies such as coal mining, offshore oil and gas drilling, and hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas. While there are substantial party and ideological divides over increasing fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources, strong majorities of all party and ideology groups support more solar and wind production.

Most Americans know the U.S. is producing more energy today

Most Americans are aware of America’s ongoing energy boom . The United States is producing more energy from fossil fuels and has ticked up production of renewable sources such as wind and solar. A large majority of Americans (72%) say the United States is producing more energy than it did 20 years ago. Far smaller shares say the U.S. is producing the same level (17%) or less energy (10%) than it did 20 years ago 8

Majorities across demographic, educational and political groups say the U.S. is producing more energy today. Awareness of this trend is especially high among those with postgraduate degrees (86% compared with 64% among those with high school degrees or less). Men are more inclined to say the U.S. is producing more energy than women (79% vs. 66%), while Democrats are modestly more likely than Republicans to say this (79% vs. 65%).

Strong public support for more wind and solar, closer divides over nuclear and fossil fuels

Large majorities of Americans favor expanding renewable sources to provide energy, but the public is far less supportive of increasing the production of fossil fuels, such as oil and gas, and nuclear energy.

Fully 89% of Americans favor more solar panel farms, just 9% oppose. A similarly large share supports more wind turbine farms (83% favor, 14% oppose).

By comparison, the public is more divided over expanding the production of nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources. Specifically, 45% favor more offshore oil and gas drilling, while 52% oppose. Similar shares support and oppose expanding hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” for oil and gas (42% favor and 53% oppose). Some 41% favor more coal mining, while a 57% majority opposes this.

And, 43% of Americans support building more nuclear power plants, while 54% oppose. Past Pew Research Center surveys on energy issues, using somewhat different question wording and survey methodology, found opinion broadly in keeping with this new survey. For example, the balance of opinion in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey about building more nuclear power plants was similar (45% favor, 51% oppose), and some 52% of Americans favored and 44% opposed allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling in that survey.

Most Republicans and Democrats favor expanding renewables; there are strong divides over expanding fossil fuels

Across the political spectrum, large majorities support expansion of solar panel and wind turbine farms. Some 83% of conservative Republicans favor more solar panel farms; so, too, do virtually all liberal Democrats (97%). Similarly, there is widespread agreement across party and ideological groups in favor of expanding wind energy.

Consistent with past Pew Research Center surveys , this new survey finds there are deep political divides over expanding fossil fuel energy sources. Conservative Republicans stand out from other party and ideology groups in this regard. At least seven-in-ten conservative Republicans support more coal mining (73%), fracking (70%) and offshore drilling (76%). A majority of Democrats oppose expanding each of these energy sources while moderate/liberal Republicans fall somewhere in the middle on these issues.

The political divide over expanding nuclear energy is smaller. Some 57% of conservative Republicans, and 51% of all Republicans, favor more nuclear power plants. Democrats lean in the opposite direction with 59% opposed and 38% in favor of more nuclear power plants.

As also found in past Pew Research Center surveys , women are less supportive of expanding nuclear power than men, even after controlling for politics and education. Some 34% of women favor and 62% oppose more nuclear plants. Men are more closely divided on this issue: 52% favor and 46% oppose. Men and women hold more similar views on other energy issues.

Many Americans are giving serious thought to having solar panels at home

America’s solar power industry is growing. In 2016, solar is expected to add more electricity generating capacity than any other energy source in the United States. Just 4% of Americans report having home solar panels but many more − 37% − say they are giving it serious thought.

These figures are similar among homeowners. Some 44% of homeowners have already installed (4%) or have given serious thought to installing (40%) solar panels at home.

Western residents and younger adults are especially likely to say are considering, or have installed, solar panels at home. Some 14% of homeowners in the West have installed solar panels at home and another 52% say they are considering doing so. By contrast, 35% of homeowners in the South say they have installed (3%) or given serious thought to installing solar at home (33%).

Some 55% of homeowners under age 50 say they have given serious thought to installing or have already installed solar panels at home. Fewer homeowners ages 50 and older say the same (36%).

The key reasons people cite for considering solar are financial followed by concern for the environment. Among all who have installed or given serious thought to installing solar panels, large majorities say their reasons include cost savings on utilities (92%) or helping the environment (87%). Smaller shares of this group, though still majorities, say improved health (67%) or a solar tax investment credit (59%) are reasons they have or would install home solar panels.

• Pew Research Center in 2014 asked a related question – whether the amount of energy produced in the United States had been increasing, decreasing or staying the same in recent years. In that survey, 54% of Americans said the amount of energy produced had been increasing, while 27% said it had been staying the same and 10% said it had been decreasing. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

Most Popular

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

• Original article
• Open access
• Published: 02 April 2018

A change in the wind? US public views on renewable energy and climate compared

• Lawrence C. Hamilton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1977-0649 1 , 4 ,
• Erin Bell 2 ,
• Joel Hartter 3 , 4 &
• Jonathan D. Salerno 3  

Energy, Sustainability and Society volume  8 , Article number:  11 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

10k Accesses

40 Citations

15 Altmetric

Metrics details

Renewable energy development is a necessary step toward climate change mitigation, so these topics have often been linked. In US public discourse, however, they have somewhat different profiles—climate change views are tied closely to partisan identity, whereas renewable energy exhibits more cross-cutting appeal, and sometimes more cross-cutting opposition as well. To what extent are such differences reflected in survey data tracking rates of change, respondent characteristics, and local or regional variations in public opinion on renewable energy and climate?

We explore similarities and differences in views of renewable energy and climate change using a unique collection of 18 US national or regional surveys totaling more than 14,000 interviews, conducted between 2011 and 2017. Individual surveys varied in context, content, and goals, but all asked two common energy and climate questions, which yield comparable and strikingly consistent results.

Public support for renewable energy appears broader than acceptance of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), especially in a more conservative region. Despite local controversies, support for renewable energy in recent years rose faster than ACC acceptance on two regional surveys. Political divisions remain wide on both topics, but wider regarding climate change—particularly among college-educated respondents. Renewable energy views in counties with proposed or operating wind farms are not systematically different from those in other counties.

Conclusions

Overall, these results provide encouragement for promoting renewable energy in terms of its economic benefits, working around some of the political identity-based resistance to climate change mitigation. That approach could be most important in politically conservative regions where such resistance is strong.

Transitioning from fossil fuels to lower-carbon renewable energy sources presents the central challenge and most pressing requirement for mitigation of anthropogenic climate change. Consequently, the issues of renewable energy development and climate change often are linked through scientific, policy, and public discussions. In the USA, however, renewable energy appears to have somewhat broader public appeal [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. That appeal partly reflects immediate economic benefits including jobs, cheaper energy, and income for landowners or managers. Less tangibly, some renewable sources (e.g., rooftop and community solar) promise a sense of self-sufficiency that attracts people of diverse persuasions. Individual incentives include lower prices, growing accessibility, belief that renewable energy is environmentally better, and social modeling as people see their peers or other regions successfully adopting. Broader public acceptance of renewable energy leads to suggestions that renewable energy development should be advocated as a constructive action with or without reference to climate change [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ].

But how different are the social bases of public support for renewable energy and views about climate change? A unique collection of 18 national and regional US surveys, all of which carried the same two energy and climate questions, allows systematic comparison of views on these issues across time, location, and respondent characteristics. We find broad similarities in the background characteristics of people who prioritize renewable energy development and those who accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change (ACC). There are some contrasts regarding the two issues as well: renewable energy development has somewhat higher public support, especially in a conservative region, and its support may be rising faster. More subtly, differences in the interaction between education and political party suggest that processes of partisan information-filtering operate less severely with renewable energy than with acceptance of ACC. These results provide qualified encouragement for promoting renewable energy in terms of its economic benefits, working around some of the political identity-based resistance to climate change mitigation.

Solar and wind power currently make up relatively small fractions, around 2.2 and 5.5% respectively, of US electricity generating capacity [ 8 ]. However, their importance is rapidly growing. Solar power (both concentrated industrial and distributed photovoltaics) contributed 39% of all new US capacity in 2016; another 26% came from wind power [ 9 ]. In terms of employment, solar and wind power industries grew 12 times faster than the US economy as a whole, with employment in both sectors well surpassing the declining coal industry [ 10 ]. Dramatic reductions in the cost of solar- and wind-generated electricity have made them economically more competitive, while rising concerns about climate change highlight their importance as low-carbon sources. Other factors including legislation, tax credits, community programs, new enterprises, and wider distribution networks add to renewable energy’s consumer appeal—although some of these could be reversed by changes in government policy.

Immediate employment and economic benefits give renewable energy issues a different character from risk-oriented discussions of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), but the two topics often are linked [ 11 ]. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, hence slowing the pace of climate change, forms a major argument in favor of renewable energy development. While new industries or investments build up wind and solar, fossil fuel interests have incentives and means to oppose renewable energy development or else shift emphasis to other fossil fuels such as natural gas instead of coal. Politicians, politicized media, and the public often align their views on both topics according to general left/right orientation: renewable energy and the reality of ACC are more widely accepted among liberals and moderates, whereas fossil fuels and ACC denial have stronger conservative appeal. Thus, perceptions about renewable energy and climate become tied to sociopolitical identity, as dramatized in the 2016 US presidential campaign where the main parties took opposite positions on both [ 12 ]. Of course, such left/right alignment is socially constructed; there is nothing inherently liberal or conservative about wind turbines and oil wells, or the Earth’s air and water.

Political identity dominates other individual characteristics in predicting climate change views among the US public. Gender and age effects are weaker but generally consistent: women and younger adults more often see ACC as a problem. Such relationships between climate views and individual characteristics have been extensively studied, with new work almost weekly [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Despite the diverse methods employed, analyzing different questions from samples collected at different times, core findings appear stable. The demographic predictors of climate change concern broadly resemble those of other environment-related topics explored by studies over the decades since Van Liere and Dunlap wrote about “the social bases of environmental concern”—although political divisions are much wider now [ 21 ].

Regarding climate change and other environmental issues, people with more education generally express higher concern. Education effects are complicated, however, by their interaction with politics. Concern increases with education among liberals and moderates, but does not increase and may even decrease with education among the most conservative [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. Similar patterning occurs in analyses with objectively assessed science literacy or numeracy, or with subjectively assessed understanding, taking the place of education [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. Conceptual explanations for this class of interactions invoke information-filtering frameworks such as elite cues, confirmation bias, cultural cognition, biased assimilation, motivated reasoning, reinforcing spirals, and selective exposure [ 15 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. These frameworks share a common insight that people preferentially acquire information that reinforces their prejudices and sociopolitical identity. Better-educated individuals more actively filter information and are more cognizant of identity-appropriate positions, so educated partisans are the farthest apart.

The social bases of support for renewable energy development in general terms resemble those for concern about climate change and other environmental issues. Driven by practical interests, however, studies of public support for renewable energy often focus on specific places where development is occurring or proposed. At regional and local scales, different patterns emerge, as people who might be expected to favor renewable energy in general terms based on their values nevertheless oppose a specific development having impacts near where they live [ 40 , 41 , 42 ]. Such opposition is often labeled as NIMBY (“not in my backyard”), although some scholars reject that term as pejorative and unfairly simple [ 43 , 44 ]. Wolsink (2007), for example, notes the importance of feelings about equity and fairness, along with visual impacts on the landscape, in shaping views toward local wind development [ 45 ]. Petrova (2016) distinguishes four broad categories of concern—visual/landscape, environmental, socioeconomic, and procedural [ 46 ]. Specific issues include apprehensions about noise, impacts on wildlife, sense of place, engagement in process, and the degree of local vs. distant benefits. Research sometimes aims to identify particular communication or engagement strategies that reduce local opposition [ 47 ]. Unsurprisingly, a key factor affecting public support for renewable energy development is perception of local economic benefits [ 48 , 49 , 50 ].

In this paper, we examine key questions arising from discourse on renewable energy in the context of climate change. (1) Does the higher public support for renewable energy found in national surveys also occur locally, in places with controversial development? (2) Are views on these topics changing, and with similar directions and rates? (3) Do the same individual characteristics predict views on renewable energy and climate change, or are the former less politicized? (4) Net of individual characteristics, are there detectable differences in renewable energy views of residents in counties that have or have not experienced large-scale wind power development?

Addressing these questions requires broad, comparative data. We analyze a unique collection of 18 surveys with more than 14,000 respondents, conducted under four different projects over 2011 to 2017. Although these surveys differed in content and goals, they carried two common renewable energy and climate change questions—providing a resource for exploring individual, regional, and temporal dimensions of public views on renewable energy and climate change together.

Of the four survey projects covered, one (Polar, Environment, and Science; POLES) involves nationally representative US samples. The other three are regional, covering the state of New Hampshire, the North Country (a rural four-county region in northern New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine), and northeast Oregon. Each of the regional studies involves areas that experienced economically significant manifestations of climate change during these years and also saw controversial development of wind power.

Regional survey context

Solar energy, mainly from distributed photovoltaics, contributes less than 1% of New Hampshire’s electricity needs. The state’s northern latitude and climate are less conducive to solar power than some sunnier locations, but the solar contribution has been rapidly growing. Around 54 MW of installed capacity existed in 2016, and it is projected to pass 260 MW over the next 5 years [ 9 ]. The state’s solar industry includes almost 80 companies, the majority involved with manufacturing. Demand from individual businesses and homeowners, encouraged by utility rebates, is driving this expansion.

New Hampshire hilltops provide locations favorable for wind turbines. The main sites currently operating are Lempster Mountain (Sullivan County), Granite Reliable Wind Farm (Coös County), and Groton Wind (Grafton County), which have a combined capacity around 170 MW. Additional wind farms have been proposed for Antrim (Hillsborough County) and Spruce Ridge (Grafton County), but these appear stalled after residents of nearby towns voted overwhelmingly against them. Primary concerns raised by opponents include negative impacts on property values, scenery, wildlife, and public health and safety (related to sound and shadow flicker from turbines) [ 51 ].

Other significant sources of renewable energy for New Hampshire are hydroelectric power and biomass burning. Together, these have a capacity over 600 MW, although these sources were not mentioned in our survey question. Tidal energy, which is mentioned in the New Hampshire question, is not yet operational in the state apart from the small-scale Living Bridge project in Portsmouth.

Coös and Grafton Counties in New Hampshire, along with Essex County in Vermont, and Oxford County in Maine, comprise our North Country region. This sparsely populated region was the focus of a separate, targeted survey involving 1650 interviews in the summer of 2017. Coös and Grafton wind developments have been mentioned above. Oxford County has about 70 MW of wind capacity operating at two sites (Spruce Mountain and Record Hill), with local support encouraged by the resulting income [ 52 ]. Wind farms at large and small scales have been proposed in Essex County, but faced strong local opposition [ 53 ]. Thus, all of the North Country counties have experience with proposed or currently operating wind development.

The state of Oregon generates the majority of its own electricity from renewable sources and exports some to other states. Hydroelectric power comprises the largest fraction, but installed wind capacity exceeds 3100 MW. Installed solar capacity is over 260 MW and, as in New Hampshire, has been rising steeply [ 9 ]. Northeast Oregon, the site of our Communities and Forests in Oregon (CAFOR) surveys, is a sparsely populated region (fewer than 3 people per km 2 ) with a relatively dry climate. Substantial wind farms operate at Elkhorn Valley (Union County) and the Vansycle Ridge and Stateline projects in Umatilla County. One smaller project (Chopin, also in Umatilla County) has been approved but not yet completed. A proposal for a larger project at Antelope Ridge in Union County was withdrawn in 2013. Fifty-two percent in a vote among Union county residents went against this project. Local opponents cited wildlife and visual impacts, whereas proponents focused on the potential for tax revenues and employment—as well as freedom of people to do what they want on their own land, a salient value in this region. The developer described withdrawal as strictly a business decision, resulting from changes in California rules that made it harder to export electricity to that state [ 54 ]. An even larger project, Wheatridge Wind (500 MW), has been proposed for Morrow and Umatilla Counties.

The context for renewable energy development in both New England and Oregon involves rapid growth in distributed photovoltaics, although these do not yet make up a large fraction of electricity supply. Both regions also have a recent, high profile recent history of wind farm development, with some sites established but others successfully opposed. Homemade signs and local activism opposing development in Union County, Oregon, were noted by the CAFOR research team during field work in 2011. The controversy inspired placement of our renewable energy question on the first Oregon survey, and subsequently on many others.

Four survey projects

Us polar, environment, and science (poles).

These nationwide US landline and cell telephone surveys were organized by University of New Hampshire and Columbia University researchers. Interviews involved two stages with separate random samples: before the US presidential elections in August 2016 ( n  = 704) and immediately afterwards in November/December 2016 ( n  = 707). Response rates in four subsamples of the POLES survey ranged from 15 to 30% (all response rates are calculated following AAPOR definition 4 [ 55 ]). The surveys asked mainly environment- and science-related questions. Preliminary results have been described in two reports [ 12 , 56 ].

New Hampshire Granite State Poll (GSP)

These landline and cell telephone surveys interview independent random samples of New Hampshire residents four times each year. Along with standard background and political questions, the GSP often carries items about environment or science. New Hampshire responses on the environment/science questions commonly fall close to national benchmarks. Some recent New Hampshire/US data comparisons, and citations to other GSP research, are given by Hamilton [ 56 , 57 ]. From July 2012 to October 2017, the GSP conducted 7064 interviews that included our renewable energy question. The median response rate over this period was 20%.

Northeast Oregon Communities and Forests in Oregon (CAFOR)

Under the CAFOR project, landline and cell telephone surveys involving separate random samples of northeast Oregon residents were conducted in three stages: September/October 2011 ( n  = 1585 from Baker, Union, and Wallowa Counties), August/October 2014 ( n  = 1752, from the same three counties along with Crook, Grant, Umatilla, and Wheeler Counties), and October/November 2015 ( n  = 651, repeating the seven counties from 2014) [ 24 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 ]. Response rates on the three CAFOR surveys range from 30 to 48%.

North Country

This survey in summer 2017 involved random-sample cell phone and landline interviews with 1650 residents of four adjacent counties in northern New England: Coös and Grafton, New Hampshire; Essex, Vermont; and Oxford, Maine. Designed to assess changes in residents’ perceptions of their rural communities, the survey (with a response rate of 19%) replicated some questions from earlier surveys [ 62 ].

Table  1 lists variables from these surveys that are analyzed here. Although each project had different frameworks and goals, they carried two standard questions on renewable energy and climate. Additionally, the surveys gathered respondent background information such as age, education, and political party.

Renewable energy and climate change views

The renewable energy question asks,

Which do you think should be a higher priority for the future of this country, increased exploration and drilling for oil, or increased use of renewable energy such as wind or solar?

Figure  1 shows the strong support for renewable energy across the most recent years of each project (2015 for CAFOR, 2016 for POLES, 2017 for GSP and North Country). Footnote 1 Seventy-two percent of the national respondents, and 78 or 79% in the recent North Country and New Hampshire surveys, gave renewable energy higher priority. Even in northeast Oregon, which environmentally and politically tends to be much more conservative [ 60 , 63 ], 61% prioritized renewable energy while only 26% chose increased exploration and drilling.

Should increased exploration and drilling for oil, or increased use of renewable energy such as wind or solar, be a higher priority for the future of this country? Responses from most recent years of US POLES, New Hampshire GSP, NE Oregon CAFOR, and North Country survey projects

The surveys also carried a basic question on climate change:

Which of the following three statements do you think is more accurate? Climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities; climate change is happening now, but caused mainly by natural forces; or climate change is not happening now .

The US, New Hampshire, and North Country results are quite similar—64 to 66% agreement with the scientific consensus that climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities (Fig.  2 ). Twenty-five to 29% instead think climate is changing for natural reasons, while just 3 or 4% maintain that climate change is not happening now. Footnote 2 Previous studies found that New Hampshire and nationwide responses tend to be similar on this question [ 16 ].

Is climate change happening now, caused mainly by human activities? Is it happening now, but caused mainly by natural forces? Or is climate change not happening now? Responses from most recent years of US POLES, New Hampshire GSP, NE Oregon CAFOR, and North Country survey projects

Northeast Oregon is a politically conservative region; in the 2012 presidential election, Barack Obama received only 22 to 34% of the votes from our CAFOR counties (compared with 51% nationwide or 52% in New Hampshire). County-level voting behavior correlates strongly with views on climate change [ 63 ], so there is correspondingly low agreement in this region that human activities are changing the climate (42% on our 2015 survey). Many residents concede that climate is changing but attribute it to natural forces [ 64 ]. Although our renewable energy and climate change questions are not directly comparable with each other, we note that the gap between renewable energy and anthropogenic climate change responses is particularly wide in this conservative region (19 percentage points). The wide gap in Oregon, where majorities prioritize renewable energy but do not think ACC is real, suggests some degree of decoupling from left/right identity—as illustrated anecdotally in Fig.  3 .

Billboard with “I didn’t vote Obama” sticker signals the political orientation of a wind power supporter in Oregon (L. Hamilton photo, July 2013)

Earlier papers discussed perceptions and reality of climate changes in northeast Oregon [ 24 , 60 ] and New Hampshire [ 63 ].

Figure  4 tracks results from the 18 surveys synthesized for this study. The two nationwide POLES surveys, conducted just before and after the 2016 election, exhibit a slight uptick in public support for renewable energy following the election of Donald Trump, who strongly promotes fossil fuel use instead. In northeast Oregon, support for renewable energy rose almost linearly by about 10 points through the surveys of 2011, 2014, and 2015. Twelve statewide New Hampshire surveys show a rise of more than 15 points from 2012 to 2017. The North Country results, involving four rural counties of New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont, provide a single data point that fits with the statewide New Hampshire trend.

Weighted percentages and 95% confidence intervals for renewable energy higher priority, on two US and 16 regional surveys (combined n  = 14,113)

Taken together, the regional surveys suggest a gradual rather than event-driven rise in priority for renewable energy, in keeping with national trends [ 2 ]. In New Hampshire and Oregon, the rise occurred despite local controversies about wind development. The next section tests whether shifts in demographics or political orientation can account for these trends.

Individual, temporal, and regional effects

Table  2 summarizes results from eight logit regression models predicting support for renewable energy ( renew ) or acceptance of anthropogenic climate change ( climate ) from individual respondent characteristics: age , sex , education , political party , and education×party interaction. Footnote 4 Where appropriate, indicators of survey timing are included as predictors too—before/after the 2016 election for POLES or year for the New Hampshire and Oregon surveys. Finally, with New Hampshire and Oregon, we include an indicator for counties that have experienced proposed or accomplished wind developments. Variable definitions and coding are given in Table  1 .

Table  2 expresses predictor effects in terms of odds ratios (exponentials of logit coefficients), interpreted as multiplicative effects on the odds favoring renewable energy development, or anthropogenic climate change, per 1-unit increase in each predictor. For example, the odds ratio 1.352 for education in model 1 indicates that the odds of favoring renewable energy increase by about 35% (multiplied by 1.352) with each 1-step increase in respondent education, other things being equal. This educatio n effect is statistically significant at p  < 0.01, as determined by an adjusted Wald test. Probabilities from these tests are summarized by one to three stars (for p  < 0.05 to p  < 0.001) for each individual odds ratio in Table  2 . Similar notation in the row of F statistics (likewise based on adjusted Wald tests) indicates that for all of these models, overall tests of the fitted model against a constant-only model yield p values below 0.001. Descriptively, each model’s fit is summarized by count R 2 and adjusted count R 2 statistics, adapted for these probability-weighted models [ 65 ].

The eight models in Table  2 describe four sets of data. The first two models involve the nationwide POLES survey, with an estimation sample of 1209 interviews. The dummy variable election is coded 0 for the pre-election August stage and 1 for the post-election November/December stage, but this timing makes no difference in predicting either renew or climate . Age , education , and party , on the other hand, do affect renew and climate , and in similar directions for both dependent variables. Odds ratios greater than 1.0 correspond to “positive” effects, while those below 1.0 correspond to “negative” effects. Older respondents less often prioritize renewable energy or think anthropogenic climate change is real. Odds of prioritizing renewable energy or accepting ACC tend to be higher among respondents with more education and lower among those with more conservative political identities.

The education×party interaction effect on renew falls short of statistical significance ( p  = 0.09), although this interaction does significantly affect climate ( p  < 0.001). The interactions have a similar character for both renew and climate . Support for renewable energy, or acceptance of ACC, both tend to increase with education among Democratic and Independent respondents. Among Tea Party supporters, on the other hand, support for renewable energy does not rise with education, and acceptance of ACC actually declines (Fig.  5 ). Similar interactions have been found in many other datasets across a wide range of environmental or science-related dependent variables [ 66 ].

Adjusted margins plots of education×party interaction effects on renewable energy priority (left) and anthropogenic climate change acceptance (right), from US survey models 1 and 2 in Table  2 . Shading depicts 95% confidence intervals

Models 3 and 4 analyze the statewide New Hampshire surveys. Age , education , and party effects resemble those seen with the nationwide POLES data. Education×party interactions significantly affect both dependent variables in the New Hampshire data. Among self-identified Democrats and Independents, the probability of prioritizing renewable energy rises with education. Among non-Tea Party Republicans, education has no net effect. Among Tea Party supporters, however, higher education is associated with lower odds of supporting renewable energy, or accepting the reality of ACC. Significant main effects for education and party in models 3 and 4 (as elsewhere in Table  2 ) represent the effects of those variables when the other term equals zero—that is, the effect of education among political Independents ( party  = 0) or the effect of political party among respondents with some college education ( education  = 0).

Because these New Hampshire surveys occurred over a period from 2012 to 2017, we also include survey year among the predictors. Year exhibits significant and positive effects on both renew and climate . Thus, support for renewable energy and acceptance of anthropogenic climate change both increased over this period, and this increase is not explained by individual demographic and political factors. The rate of increase for renewable energy is steeper: odds rising by about 16% per year (multiplied by 1.160), compared with 12% per year (multiplied by 1.116) for acceptance of ACC.

The final predictor in the New Hampshire models of Table  2 is a variable indicating whether the respondent’s county has large-scale wind power development. This distinction makes no detectable difference in support for renewable energy, or acceptance of anthropogenic climate change.

Models 5 and 6 describe northeast Oregon CAFOR surveys. For comparability, we restrict this analysis to a subset of the CAFOR data involving Baker, Union, and Wallowa counties. (Four other counties were surveyed, in addition to these three, in 2014 and 2015 only.) Also, the 2011 CAFOR survey permits only a three-party political coding, so that is used in models 5 and 6 unlike the others in Table  2 which employ 4-party coding. Footnote 5 Age effects and the main effects of education and party are similar to those in US and New Hampshire surveys. After controlling for age , sex , education , and party , we still see significant year effects, meaning a rise in the odds of prioritizing renewable energy and accepting ACC. As in New Hampshire, the rise for renewable energy is somewhat steeper—odds increased by about 13% yearly, compared with 10% for ACC.

The Oregon models in Table  2 also include an indicator for counties with substantial wind development. This has a significant negative effect (odds ratio below 1.0), mainly reflecting lower support in Union county—site of an operating wind farm at Elkhorn Valley, but also the controversial Antelope Ridge proposal that was a focus of local opposition and withdrawn in 2013. Footnote 6

The final two models in Table  2 describe the North Country survey conducted in summer 2017 in four adjacent counties of northern New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. Age and party effects closely resemble those of other datasets. Education×party interactions affect views on climate change but not renewable energy, similar to the POLES and CAFOR results.

Previous nationwide US surveys have noted rising public support for renewable energy development, with political divisions that are substantial but somewhat narrower than for climate change [ 66 ]. Given these realities, renewable energy development seemingly offers hope for working around some of the political resistance to climate change mitigation [ 5 ]. Development becomes most controversial, however, at local scales where impacts and benefits become more immediate [ 40 , 45 ]. Our analysis placed regional and national survey data in a side-by-side comparison, addressing four questions.

Does the higher public support for renewable energy found in national surveys also occur locally, in places with controversial developments? In each of the regional surveys, and also nationwide, the proportion of respondents who prioritize renewable energy exceeds those who accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change (Figs.  1 and 2 ). The gap between these proportions is wider on regional than national surveys and widest in the most conservative region.

Are views on these topics changing, and with similar directions and rates? In two regional time series, renewable energy support and ACC acceptance significantly increased over the years covered (2011–2015 or 2012–2017). In both cases, the trends are steeper for renewable energy than for ACC. Two nationwide and one single-shot regional survey yield data points consistent with these trends (Fig.  4 ).

Do the same individual characteristics predict views on renewable energy and climate change, or are the former less politicized? Renewable energy support and anthropogenic climate change acceptance are both predicted by age and (in all but the North Country survey) education. Both also are substantially politicized, as shown by strong party effects across all models in Table  2 . Footnote 7 These issues differ most notably in terms of their education×party interactions. Odds ratios for the interaction effects are less than 1.0 across all eight models in Table  2 , indicating that all point in the same direction: partisan divisions widen with education, so information elites stand the farthest apart. Within the pair of models for each survey, however, the education×party effects are weaker (closer to 1.0) for renew than for climate .

Explanations for this general class of interactions commonly invoke information-filtering processes, whether top-down as with elite cues (educated partisans more aware of positions taken by their political or media leaders) or bottom-up as with biased assimilation or motivated reasoning (educated partisans more actively acquire/reject information according to their prejudices). Information filtering could be a good thing if, for example, people preferentially favor scientific over non-scientific sources and understand which is which. Information filtering could also be a bad thing, if it involves rejection of scientific or otherwise well-grounded information that conflicts with political beliefs. Previous studies established what Table  2 confirms, that information filtering is particularly acute with regard to climate change. Our analysis shows that it occurs regarding renewable energy too, but less strongly. On that topic, people may be open to a wider range of information and less constrained by their political identity.

Net of background characteristics, are there detectable differences in renewable energy views of residents in counties that have or have not experienced large-scale wind power development? We find no systematic pattern of higher or lower support in counties with wind power development. The significant negative effect of the windev indicator in model 5 of Table  2 reflects a single county: Union County, Oregon, site of one successful development but another that was hotly contested and withdrawn. If we expand the Oregon analysis to include the four counties that were surveyed only in 2014 and 2015, instead of just the three counties surveyed in all 3 years (and thereby gain about 1200 observations), this windev odds ratio moves closer to 1.0 (going from to 0.72 to 0.83) and is no longer statistically significant.

Local opposition to wind farms probably operates at scales smaller than counties (or may cross county lines) and can depend on particularities of landscape and soundscape impacts, as well as the distribution of benefits. If wind projects are located in rural regions, while their energy and greatest economic benefits go somewhere else, this creates a sense of inequity and undermines some arguments for permitting local development. Our surveys do not resolve finer-scale geography or the perceptions about benefits, topics that could be pursued in future research.

Analysis of data from 18 surveys robustly confirms that support for renewable energy and acceptance of anthropogenic climate change have similar social bases with respect to age and education. Party divisions also are wide for both issues. Regarding climate change, the partisan gap widens with education. A similar widening pattern occurs with renewable energy but there it is milder and often not significant.

In two regions for which we have time series, and where development controversies have occurred, public support for renewable energy appears to be rising somewhat faster than acceptance of anthropogenic climate change. Renewable energy enjoys higher support overall, and the contrast between energy and climate views is greater in a more conservative region. This finding calls for replication and could have practical implications for renewable energy proponents in conservative regions.

The studied regions in the Intermountain West and northern New England have both have experienced harmful impacts related to climate change—including more frequent drought and wildfires (Oregon) or flooding (New England) and insect infestations affecting forests or human health [ 67 , 68 , 69 ]. Despite physical impacts, individual perceptions about climate change in those regions as elsewhere in the USA depend largely on politics [ 60 , 63 ]. Political opposition keeps agreement on meaningful greenhouse mitigation out of reach, despite growing risks. Renewable energy development, however, can to some degree be motivated without reference to climate change. Economic benefits to landowners or the local tax base appeal to some who reject global warming, even as others see the mitigation value. Local opposition to large-scale solar or wind developments can also be cross-cutting, however, driven partly by concern for landscapes that are central to rural life regardless of politics.

Any prospect for climate change mitigation requires rapid and substantial growth in low-carbon renewable sources of energy (such as wind and solar), while adapting the power grid to these sources and minimizing their manufacturing and waste footprints. US public acceptance of the reality of anthropogenic climate change has advanced only gradually, however, and the currently dominant political narrative at the federal level goes against this. In this context, promoting renewable energy in terms of practical benefits such as jobs and cheaper energy, independent of climate considerations, provides a valuable first step that is by no means sufficient, but in the near term may be necessary—particularly in conservative regions where much of the population rejects ACC. The similar social bases of renewable energy and climate change views place limitations on this strategy, but our findings give encouragement that it has some room to succeed.

Probability weights calculated from each survey’s sample characteristics and sampling design have been applied in Fig.  1 and all other analyses in this paper, to achieve more representative results.

Fewer New Hampshire responses appear in Fig.  2 b than in Fig.  1 b because some GSP surveys with the renewables question did not also ask about climate. Results are similar but have wider confidence intervals if we restrict Figs.  1c and 2 c to only the interviews that asked both.

Coös and Grafton counties, which are represented (by different respondents and surveys) in both the New Hampshire and North Country datasets, together comprise only 9% of the state’s population, and correspondingly 9% of the New Hampshire statewide sample. The economy and landscapes of these two northern counties differ from those of the state’s populous southern tier. Consequently, there is limited redundancy between the coverage of New Hampshire and North Country projects.

Political party is treated as a four-category ordinal variable, coded from − 1 (Democrat) to + 2 (Tea Party), for these regression models. An alternative approach, instead using a set of {0,1} dummy variables, produces more complicated models with larger standard errors, while reaching substantially similar conclusions. For examples testing dummy-variable party indicators with 12 different dependent variables, see Figure 3 and Table 2 in Hamilton and Saito (2015).

Analysis of the 2014 and 2015 CAFOR surveys only, based on all seven counties and with 4-party political coding (not shown), yields substantially similar conclusions to the 2011–2015, 3-county and 3-party analysis in models 5 and 6 of Table  2 . We prefer the 2011–2015 3-county analysis for a more definitive test of change over time.

Two alternative specifications were tested in the New Hampshire and Oregon analyses: indicators for counties where wind power development had been halted in the face of active opposition and indicators treating each county individually. Either alternative yields similarly weak county effects, while leaving the effects of other predictors almost unchanged.

A simpler analysis, not described in the paper, confirms that although partisan gaps on both climate change and renewable energy are quite wide, they are wider for climate change across the most recent years of all four datasets. For example, in the 2016 US POLES surveys, the Democrat/Tea Party gap on climate change is 59 points, compared with 48 points on renewable energy. Corresponding gaps are 66/45 in the 2017 New Hampshire surveys, 56/51 in the 2015 Oregon survey, and 48/31 in the 2017 North Country survey.

Ansolabehere S, Konisky DM (2014) Cheap and clean: how Americans think about energy in the age of global warming. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Google Scholar  

Kennedy B (2017) Two-thirds of Americans give priority to developing alternative energy over fossil fuels. Fact Tank, Pew Research. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/23/two-thirds-of-americans-give-priority-to-developing-alternative-energy-over-fossil-fuels/ . Accessed 26 Jan 2018

Stokes LC, Warshaw C (2017) Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States. Nat Energy. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.107

Cohen S (2017) Renewable energy with or without climate change. State of the planet. Earth Institute of Columbia University. http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/02/13/renewable-energy-with-or-without-climate-change/ . Accessed 26 Jan 2018

Deaton J (2016) How to inspire action on climate in the age of Trump: a guide for advocates. Nexus Media. https://nexusmedianews.com/how-to-inspire-action-on-climate-in-the-age-of-trump-9dab4f8e7a6d . Accessed 26 Jan 2018

Jackson R (2017) Forget about climate change. Scientific American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/forget-about-climate-change/ . Accessed 26 Jan 2018

Long N, Steinberger K (2016) Renewable energy is key to fighting climate change. Natural Resources Defense Council. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/noah-long/renewable-energy-key-fighting-climate-change . Accessed 26 Jan 2018

EIA (2017) Electric power monthly with data for December 2016. U.S. Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/ . Accessed 26 Jan 2018

SEIA (2017) Solar industry data. Solar Energy Industries Association. http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-industry-data . Accessed 26 Jan 2018

DOE (2017) U.S. energy and jobs report. U.S. Department of Energy. https://energy.gov/downloads/2017-us-energy-and-employment-report . Accessed 26 Jan 2018

Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona S and 8 others (eds) (2011) Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation: summary for policymakers and technical summary. Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srren/SRREN_FD_SPM_final.pdf . Accessed 26 Jan 2018

Hamilton LC (2017) On renewable energy and climate, Trump voters stand apart. Durham, NH: Carsey School of Public Policy http://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/293/ . Accessed 26 Jan 2018

Shwom RL, McCright AM, Brechin SR, Dunlap RE, Marquart-Pyatt ST. Hamilton LC (2015) Public opinion on climate change. In: Dunlap and Brulle R (eds) Climate change and society: sociological perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press

Borick CP, Rabe BG (2010) A reason to believe: examining the factors that determine individual views on global warming. Soc Sci Q 91(3):777–800. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00719.x

Article   Google Scholar  

Brulle RJ, Carmichael J, Jenkins CJ (2012) Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010. Clim Chang 114(2):169–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0403-y

Hamilton LC, Hartter J, Lemcke-Stampone M, Moore DW, Safford TG (2015) Tracking public beliefs about anthropogenic climate change. PLoS One 10(9):e0138208. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138208

McCright AM, Dentzman K, Chartes M, Dietz T (2013) The influence of political ideology on trust in science. Environ Res Lett 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044029

McCright AM, Dunlap RE, Xiao C (2014) Increasing influence of party identification on perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the United States, 2006–12. Weather Climate Soc 6(2):194–201. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00058.1

Marquart-Pyatt ST, McCright AM, Dietz T, Dunlap RE (2014) Politics eclipses climate extremes for climate change perceptions. Glob Environ Chang 29:246–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.004

Wiest SL, Raymond L, Clawson RA (2015) Framing, partisan predispositions, and public opinion on climate change. Glob Environ Chang 31:187–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.12.006

Van Liere KD, Dunlap RE (1980) The social bases of environmental concern: a review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opin Q 44(2):181–197. https://doi.org/10.1086/268583

Hamilton LC (2008) Who cares about polar regions? Results from a survey of U.S. public opinion. Arct Antarct Alp Res 40(4):671–678

Hamilton LC (2012) Did the Arctic ice recover? Demographics of true and false climate facts. Weather Climate Soc 4(4):236–249. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-12-00008.1

Hamilton LC, Hartter J, Safford TG, Stevens FR (2014) Rural environmental concern: effects of position, partisanship and place. Rural Sociol 79(2):257–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12023

McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol Q 52(2):155–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x

Shao W, Keim BD, Garland JC, Hamilton LC (2014) Weather, climate, and the economy: explaining risk perceptions of global warming, 2001–2010. Weather Clim Soc 6(1):119–134. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00029.1

Hamilton LC, Cutler MJ, Schaefer A (2012) Public knowledge and concern about polar-region warming. Polar Geogr 35(2):155–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/1088937X.2012.684155

Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL, Braman D, Mandel G (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Chang 2(10):732–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1547

Hamilton LC (2011) Education, politics and opinions about climate change: evidence for interaction effects. Clim Chang 104:231–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9957-8

Corner A, Whitmarsh L, Xenias D (2012) Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: biased assimilation and attitude polarisation. Clim Chang 114(3–4):463–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0424-6

Darmofal D (2005) Elite cues and citizen disagreement with expert opinion. Pol Res Q 58(3):381–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800302

Feldman L, Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A (2012) Climate on cable: the nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. Int J Press/Politics 17(1):3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161211425410

Jasny L, Waggle J, Fisher DR (2015) An empirical examination of echo chambers in US climate policy networks. Nat Clim Chang 5(8):782–786. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2666

Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 14(2):147–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246

Lord CG, Ross L, Lepper MR (1979) Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 37(11):2098–2109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098

Munro GD, Ditto PH (1997) Biased assimilation, attitude polarization, and affect in reactions to stereotype-relevant scientific information. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 23(6):636–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297236007

Slater MD (2007) The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Commun Theory 17(3):281–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.x

Taber CS, Lodge M (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am J Polit Sci 50(3):755–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x

Zhao X (2009) Media use and global warming perceptions: a snapshot of the reinforcing spirals. Commun Res 36(5):698–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209338911

Batel S, Devine-Wright P (2015) Towards a better understanding of people’s responses to renewable energy technologies: insights from social representations theory. Public Underst Sci 24(3):311–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513514165

Larson EC, Krannich RS (2016) ‘A great idea, just not near me!’ Understanding public attitudes about renewable energy facilities. Soc Nat Resour 29(12):1436–1451. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2016.1150536

Swofford J, Slattery M (2010) Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-making. Energy Policy 38:2508–2519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.12.046

Devine-Wright P (2005) Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8(2):125–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.124

Petrova MA (2013) NIMBYism revisited: public acceptance of wind energy in the United States. WIREs Climate Change 4(6):575–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.250

Wolsink M (2007) Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’. Renew Sust Energ Rev 11:1188–1207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.10.005

Petrova MA (2016) From NIMBY to acceptance: toward a novel framework—VESPA—for organizing and interpreting community concerns. Renew Energy 86:1280–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.09.047

Hall N, Ashworth P, Devine-Wright P (2013) Societal acceptance of wind farms: analysis of four common themes across Australia case studies. Energy Policy 58:200–2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.009

Bidwell D (2013) The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy. Energy Policy 58:189–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.010

Dreyer SJ, Polis HJ, Jenkins LD (2017) Changing tides: acceptability, support, and perceptions of tidal energy in the United States. Energy Res Soc Sci 29:72–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.04.013

Olson-Hazboun SK, Krannich RS, Robertson PG (2016) Public views on renewable energy in the Rocky Mountain region of the United States: distinct attitudes, exposure, and other key predictors of wind energy. Energy Res Soc Sci 21(2016):167–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.07.002

Foley M (2017) Antrim Wind project blown off course. The Keene Sentinel April 26. https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2017/04/27/antrim-wind-project-blown-off-course/ . Accessed 26 Jan 2018

Richardson J (2012) Summers’ new front against King may be in the wind. Portland Press Herald, September 1. http://www.pressherald.com/2012/09/01/summers-new-front-against-king-may-be_2012-09-02/ . Accessed 3 Aug 2017

Pannebaker A (2012) A dozen industrial wind farms under way in Vermont despite intense local opposition. Vtdigger, May 24. https://vtdigger.org/2012/05/24/fourteen-industrial-wind-farms-planned-in-vermont-despite-intense-local-opposition/ . Accessed 26 Jan 2018

Sickinger T (2013) Antelope Ridge wind farm withdrawn by developers. The Oregonian, September 24. http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2013/09/edp_renewables_withdraws_contr.html . Accessed 26 Jan 2018

AAPOR (2006) Standard definitions: final disposition of case codes and outcome rates for surveys, 4th edn. American Association for Public Opinion Research, Lenexa, KS

Hamilton LC (2016) Where is the North Pole? An election-year survey on global change. Durham, NH: Carsey School of Public Policy. http://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/285/ . Accessed 26 Jan 2018

Hamilton LC (2016) Public awareness of the scientific consensus on climate. Sage Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016676296

Boag AE, Hamilton LC, Hartter J, Stevens FR, Palace MW, Ducey MJ (2016) Shifting environmental concern in rural eastern Oregon: the role of demographic and place-based factors. Popul Environ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-016-0261-z

Hamilton LC, Hartter J, Stevens F, Congalton RG, Ducey M, Campbell M, Maynard D, Staunton M (2012) Forest views: Northeast Oregon survey looks at community and environment Oregon. Durham, NH: Carsey Institute. http://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/162/ . Accessed 26 Jan 2018

Hamilton LC, Hartter J, Keim BD, Boag AE, Palace MW, Stevens FR, Ducey MJ (2016) Wildfire, climate, and perceptions in northeast Oregon. Reg Environ Chang. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0914-y

Hartter J, Hamilton LC, Boag AE, Stevens FR, Ducey MJ, Christoffersen ND, Oester PT, Palace MW (2017) Does it matter if people think climate change is human caused? Climate Services. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2017.06.014

Hamilton LC, Fogg LM, Grimm C (2017) Challenge and hope in the North Country. Durham, NH: Carsey School of Public Policy http://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/326/ . Accessed 26 Jan 2018

Hamilton LC, Wake CP, Hartter J, Safford TG, Puchlopek A (2016) Flood realities, perceptions, and the depth of divisions on climate. Sociology 50:913–933. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038516648547

Boag AE, Hartter J, Hamilton LC, Christoffersen ND, Oester PT, Stevens FR, Palace MW, Ducey MJ (2018) Barriers to climate adaptation among private forest owners: insights from Eastern Oregon. in review

Long JS, Freese J (2014) Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. Stata Press, College Station, TX

MATH   Google Scholar  

Hamilton LC, Saito K (2015) A four-party view of U.S. environmental concern. Environ Pol 24(2):212–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014.976485

Allen CC, Macalady AK, Chenchouni H, Bachelet D, McDowell N, Vennetier M, Kitzberger T, Rigling A, Breshears DD, Hogg EHT, Gonzalez P, Fensham R, Zhang Z, Castro J, Demidova N, Lim J-H, Allard G, Running SW, Semerci A, Cobb N (2010) A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For Ecol Manag 259(4):660–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.001

Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Yohe GW (eds) (2014) Climate change impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program. https://doi.org/10.7930/J0Z31WJ2 .

Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW (2006) Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313(5789):940–943. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128834

Download references

Acknowledgements

Sampling and interviews for all surveys were organized by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. Some interviews for the POLES 1 and North Country surveys were conducted by the University of Northern Florida Public Opinion Research Laboratory.

Renewable energy and climate questions on the Granite State Poll have been supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (The Living Bridge IIP-1230460 and 1430260) and by the Carsey School of Public Policy and the Sustainability Institute at the University of New Hampshire. The Communities and Forests in Oregon (CAFOR) project is supported by the Agricultural and Food Research Initiative, US Department of Agriculture (2014-68002-21782 and 2010-67023-21705). The North Country survey was supported by a grant from the Neil and Louise Tillotson Fund of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation. Support for the POLES surveys occurred through the PoLAR Partnership grant from the National Science Foundation (DUE-1239783), with additional help from the New Hampshire EPSCoR Safe Beaches and Shellfish project (IIA-1330641). Conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of supporting organizations.

Availability of data and materials

The nationwide US POLES survey data analyzed for this paper (Figs. 1 , 2 , and 5 and Table 2 ) will be made available with publication. Time series summarizing results and confidence intervals from all 18 surveys (Fig.  4 ) will also be published. Individual-level data from the regional surveys is not publishable under human-subjects agreements, given the small populations of some rural counties involved.

Stata do-files accomplishing the statistical analysis for these datasets will also be published, so other researchers can replicate our calculations for the POLES models.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 03824, USA

Lawrence C. Hamilton

Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 03824, USA

Environmental Studies Program, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 80309, USA

Joel Hartter & Jonathan D. Salerno

Carsey School of Public Policy, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 03824, USA

Lawrence C. Hamilton & Joel Hartter

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JH, EB, and LCH designed projects and questions for the regional surveys. LCH supervised all surveys, analyzed data, and drafted the rough version of this paper. LCH, JH, EB, and JDS contributed to writing and editing of the manuscript, and approved its final content.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lawrence C. Hamilton .

Ethics declarations

Authors’ information.

LCH is professor of sociology and a senior fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire.

EB, principal investigator/project director for the Living Bridge, is department chair and associate professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of New Hampshire.

JH, principal investigator/project director of CAFOR, is associate professor and associate director for public education in the Environmental Studies Program, University of Colorado, and also a faculty fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy, University of New Hampshire.

JDS is a postdoctoral research associate in the Environmental Studies Program and fellow in the Sustainability Innovation Lab of Colorado, University of Colorado.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Research protocols for informed consent and the protection of human subjects on the 18 surveys described were individually reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of New Hampshire.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hamilton, L.C., Bell, E., Hartter, J. et al. A change in the wind? US public views on renewable energy and climate compared. Energ Sustain Soc 8 , 11 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-018-0152-5

Download citation

Received : 18 September 2017

Accepted : 20 February 2018

Published : 02 April 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-018-0152-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Climate change
• Renewable energy
• Public opinion

Energy, Sustainability and Society

ISSN: 2192-0567

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• ENVIRONMENT

Renewable energy, explained

Solar, wind, hydroelectric, biomass, and geothermal power can provide energy without the planet-warming effects of fossil fuels.

In any discussion about climate change , renewable energy usually tops the list of changes the world can implement to stave off the worst effects of rising temperatures. That's because renewable energy sources such as solar and wind don't emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming .

Clean energy has far more to recommend it than just being "green." The growing sector creates jobs , makes electric grids more resilient, expands energy access in developing countries, and helps lower energy bills. All of those factors have contributed to a renewable energy renaissance in recent years, with wind and solar setting new records for electricity generation .

For the past 150 years or so, humans have relied heavily on coal, oil, and other fossil fuels to power everything from light bulbs to cars to factories. Fossil fuels are embedded in nearly everything we do, and as a result, the greenhouse gases released from the burning of those fuels have reached historically high levels .

As greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape into space, average temperatures on the surface are rising . Global warming is one symptom of climate change, the term scientists now prefer to describe the complex shifts affecting our planet’s weather and climate systems. Climate change encompasses not only rising average temperatures but also extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, rising seas , and a range of other impacts .

Of course, renewables—like any source of energy—have their own trade-offs and associated debates. One of them centers on the definition of renewable energy. Strictly speaking, renewable energy is just what you might think: perpetually available, or as the U.S. Energy Information Administration puts it, " virtually inexhaustible ." But "renewable" doesn't necessarily mean sustainable, as opponents of corn-based ethanol or large hydropower dams often argue. It also doesn't encompass other low- or zero-emissions resources that have their own advocates, including energy efficiency and nuclear power.

Types of renewable energy sources

Hydropower: For centuries, people have harnessed the energy of river currents, using dams to control water flow. Hydropower is the world's biggest source of renewable energy by far, with China, Brazil, Canada, the U.S., and Russia the leading hydropower producers . While hydropower is theoretically a clean energy source replenished by rain and snow, it also has several drawbacks.

For Hungry Minds

Large dams can disrupt river ecosystems and surrounding communities , harming wildlife and displacing residents. Hydropower generation is vulnerable to silt buildup, which can compromise capacity and harm equipment. Drought can also cause problems. In the western U.S., carbon dioxide emissions over a 15-year period were 100 megatons higher than they normally would have been, according to a 2018 study , as utilities turned to coal and gas to replace hydropower lost to drought. Even hydropower at full capacity bears its own emissions problems, as decaying organic material in reservoirs releases methane.

Dams aren't the only way to use water for power: Tidal and wave energy projects around the world aim to capture the ocean's natural rhythms. Marine energy projects currently generate an estimated 500 megawatts of power —less than one percent of all renewables—but the potential is far greater. Programs like Scotland’s Saltire Prize have encouraged innovation in this area.

Wind: Harnessing the wind as a source of energy started more than 7,000 years ago . Now, electricity-generating wind turbines are proliferating around the globe, and China, the U.S., and Germany are the leading wind energy producers. From 2001 to 2017 , cumulative wind capacity around the world increased to more than 539,000 megawatts from 23,900 mw—more than 22 fold.

Some people may object to how wind turbines look on the horizon and to how they sound, but wind energy, whose prices are declining , is proving too valuable a resource to deny. While most wind power comes from onshore turbines, offshore projects are appearing too, with the most in the U.K. and Germany. The first U.S. offshore wind farm opened in 2016 in Rhode Island, and other offshore projects are gaining momentum . Another problem with wind turbines is that they’re a danger for birds and bats, killing hundreds of thousands annually , not as many as from glass collisions and other threats like habitat loss and invasive species, but enough that engineers are working on solutions to make them safer for flying wildlife.

You May Also Like

Can energy harnessed from Earth’s interior help power the world?

How the historic climate bill will dramatically reduce U.S. emissions

5 environmental victories from 2021 that offer hope

Solar: From home rooftops to utility-scale farms, solar power is reshaping energy markets around the world. In the decade from 2007 and 2017 the world's total installed energy capacity from photovoltaic panels increased a whopping 4,300 percent .

In addition to solar panels, which convert the sun's light to electricity, concentrating solar power (CSP) plants use mirrors to concentrate the sun's heat, deriving thermal energy instead. China, Japan, and the U.S. are leading the solar transformation, but solar still has a long way to go, accounting for around two percent of the total electricity generated in the U.S. in 2017. Solar thermal energy is also being used worldwide for hot water, heating, and cooling.

Biomass: Biomass energy includes biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel , wood and wood waste, biogas from landfills, and municipal solid waste. Like solar power, biomass is a flexible energy source, able to fuel vehicles, heat buildings, and produce electricity. But biomass can raise thorny issues.

Critics of corn-based ethanol , for example, say it competes with the food market for corn and supports the same harmful agricultural practices that have led to toxic algae blooms and other environmental hazards. Similarly, debates have erupted over whether it's a good idea to ship wood pellets from U.S. forests over to Europe so that it can be burned for electricity. Meanwhile, scientists and companies are working on ways to more efficiently convert corn stover , wastewater sludge , and other biomass sources into energy, aiming to extract value from material that would otherwise go to waste.

Geothermal: Used for thousands of years in some countries for cooking and heating, geothermal energy is derived from the Earth’s internal heat . On a large scale, underground reservoirs of steam and hot water can be tapped through wells that can go a mile deep or more to generate electricity. On a smaller scale, some buildings have geothermal heat pumps that use temperature differences several feet below ground for heating and cooling. Unlike solar and wind energy, geothermal energy is always available, but it has side effects that need to be managed, such as the rotten egg smell that can accompany released hydrogen sulfide.

Ways to boost renewable energy

Cities, states, and federal governments around the world are instituting policies aimed at increasing renewable energy. At least 29 U.S. states have set renewable portfolio standards —policies that mandate a certain percentage of energy from renewable sources, More than 100 cities worldwide now boast at least 70 percent renewable energy, and still others are making commitments to reach 100 percent . Other policies that could encourage renewable energy growth include carbon pricing, fuel economy standards, and building efficiency standards. Corporations are making a difference too, purchasing record amounts of renewable power in 2018.

Wonder whether your state could ever be powered by 100 percent renewables? No matter where you live, scientist Mark Jacobson believes it's possible. That vision is laid out here , and while his analysis is not without critics , it punctuates a reality with which the world must now reckon. Even without climate change, fossil fuels are a finite resource, and if we want our lease on the planet to be renewed, our energy will have to be renewable.

Related Topics

• SUSTAINABILITY
• RENEWABLE ENERGY
• GEOTHERMAL ENERGY
• SOLAR POWER
• HYDROELECTRIC POWER
• CLIMATE CHANGE

Activists fear a new threat to biodiversity—renewable energy

How the Ukraine war is accelerating Germany's renewable energy transition

We took the Great American Road Trip—in electric cars

What’s at stake at COP26—the crucial global climate summit

3 ways COVID-19 is making us rethink energy and emissions

• Environment
• Perpetual Planet

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• History Magazine
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

Going Right

April 29, 2016

Renewable Energy Persuasive Essay

Robert Caba

Dr. Freymiller

12 April 2016

Out with the Old, In with the Re(new)able

The United States has been operating as a country using limited fossil fuels, but what happens when it all runs out? Would it not be more beneficial to never find out? Renewable energy, energy that is not depleted after its use, is limitless and more sustainable than any other source in energy history. To initiate the clean energy movement is expensive, but there are countless benefits ranging from individual to global impacts in going completely renewable. The first recorded use of renewable energy was harnessing wind power to drive ships over water about 7000 years ago (Darling). However, renewable energy has been around as long as Earth has existed: wind, sun, geothermal, biomass and many more. Clean energy sources can be harnessed to produce electricity, process heat, fuel and other chemicals with significantly less impact on the environment. In 2014, renewable energy sources accounted for fourteen percent of America’s total electricity use (“Renewable Energy Sources”), a four percent incline from the prior year. Completely diverting from fossil fuels to renewable energy clearly is not a new concept for a select few of innovative countries. A few countries, for example, are Costa Rica, Norway and Iceland, all of whom have ran on renewable energy for the entire 2015 calendar year, diving deep into their own land’s resources and utilizing volcanic presence to produce energy (Rosecrance & Thompson 7). Following in the footsteps of Costa Rica and a few other third world countries, major economic powerhouses and biggest users of fossil fuels like the United States should convert to clean energy as a way to benefit the economy, environment and overall health of the country.

As a consumer, one is worried about how abandoning a safe form of energy and transitioning to something new can help or hurt their wallet. Not only can renewable energy help save money, it can also help make money. A 150 billion dollar investment into this new industry would result in 1.7 million job opportunities, reducing the unemployment rate in America by an entire percentage (Pollin & Heintz). The reason for the potential high employment rate is because the industry is labor intensive in the means of installation and maintenance, requiring a lot of manpower for ultimate success. However, the more we wait the more future benefits we are currently losing. In an American Solar Energy Association (ASES) report in 2009, they stated “the 2008 predictions for renewable energy industry in 2030 are significantly lower than the 2007 predictions (National Research Council 169).” Unlike fossil fuels, which are subject to volatile pricing fluctuating over time depending on the market, renewable energy is relatively “free” after installation, using natural resources. The process of transportation and maintenance is minimized allowing prices to stay constant throughout the years. The only way price can head is down; for instance, clean energy is more affordable than 25 years ago. In particular, wind energy, the fastest growing source of power, prices have declined from forty cents per kilowatt per hour to less than five cents per kilowatt per hour (“The Energy Story”), a remarkable change and a huge upside in favor of the conversion. As time continues, technology should continue its progression resulting in cheaper mediums to acquire the energy. Despite of this, the conversion should take place now so results are maximized for the future. All in all, clean energy can both save Americans money while help them make money, the perfect win-win for producers and consumers alike.

Abstaining from burning countless, yet limited fossil fuels every day and polluting the environment is the single biggest benefactor for moving towards a cleaner approach. Not only would greenhouse gas emissions, as well as other pollutants that cause smog and acid rain, reach minimal levels, but also the country is consequently assisting in the reduction of the global warming speed and effects. Unlike fossil fuels, which are unable to be replenished easily, renewable energy is limitless, feeding from natural resources. With the global and national population expected to continue rising, the demand for energy will follow. There is a multitude of different approaches to acquire renewable energy including the most used types: solar and wind power. Specifically, solar energy is the epitome of sustainability and efficiency, calculated through production and prices. Despite the massive amounts of energy used yearly nationwide, “the sunlight falling on the United States in one day contains more than twice the energy we consume in an entire year ( The Energy Story ).” As for wind power, “California [alone] has enough wind gusts to produce 11 percent of the world’s wind electricity ( The Energy Story).” Wind turbines take up a lot of space but still allow the area around it, usually farms, to be used regularly. In the United Kingdom, for comparison, the government set a target for renewable energy to make up 15 percent of their total energy expense by 2020. This motive results in a 34 percent cut in the country’s carbon emission in the same time span (National Research Council 180). Needless to say, renewable energy will make landmark strides in the progression towards a cleaner, better environment. The most important thing on this Earth is this Earth, and it’s society’s job to maintain it.

As well as helping the environment and wallets, renewable energy can help with everyone’s health. By cutting the emission of greenhouse gasses and fossil fuels, air pollution decreases. Air pollution, primarily those contributed through coal burning power plants emitting fine-particulate pollutants, is most associated with causing health problems, chiefly lung cancer. The Environment Protection Agency (EPA) predicts that conversion, or even standards, will prevent at least 100,000 heart attacks and asthma attacks per year. Additionally, EPA also estimates a projected 1,100 billion dollar income in health benefits due to avoiding illnesses and deaths (U.S. EPA). As a form of partnership, the health industry could invest a portion of this money into the clean air movement due to its beneficial health impacts and help make installation cheaper. A majority of these pollutants are associated with dangerous levels of climate change, this century’s biggest threat to human health. Climate change, a change in global climate patterns, “will increasingly jeopardize the fundamental requirements for health, including clean urban air, safe and sufficient drinking-water, a secure and nutritious food supply, and adequate shelter (World Health Organization).” Climate change is the main contributor and accelerator towards global warming. Global warming increases the risk of two deadly diseases: Plague and Ebola, to name a few. For Plague, changes in temperature and rainfall will affect rodent populations as well as the infected fleas they carry. Additionally, Ebola outbreaks tend to follow serious downpours or droughts, a likely result of climate change (Biello). The movement would not only lower the pollution rate and risk of infection, but also save countless lives across the globe during the process.

America, along with most other countries, needs to initiate their plans towards a more sustainable, cleaner form of energy. Renewable energy helps increase the production of the economy through the addition of million of jobs. Simultaneously, energy prices would be lower, also helping the consumer save money. However, it is vital to start now. The longer the wait, the less benefits are reaped. Likewise, the clean air movement will mark the beginning of recovery for the environment. Greenhouse gases and other emission will reach all time lows, possibly zero. This deduction is important to slow the rate of climate change and global warming. Stopping climate change and gas emissions in its tracks would also lead to more health benefits. There are dozens of deadly diseases and carriers that spawn from the irregular climate patterns. Also, climate change could affect physiological needs by lessening safe drinking water, food supply and shelter. The United States has a reputation of being an innovator, a leader for many countries. Why has it been so lackadaisical with something so important to everything in today’s society? It has a history of being scared of change; people are too comfortable with life as it is, but it could be better. With the United States recently moving in the right direction, it will be better.

Works Cited

Biello, David. “Diseases Due to Climate Change.” Scientific American . N.p., 8 Oct. 2008. Web. 9 Apr. 2016.

Darling, David. “Wind Energy.” Encyclopedia of Alternative Energy . N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.

National Research Council, and Chinese Academy of Sciences. The Power of Renewables: Opportunities and Challenges for China and the United States . Washington, D.C.: National Academies, 2010. Print.

Pollin, Robert, and James Heintz. “The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy.” Center for American Progress . N.p., 18 June 2009. Web. 06 Apr. 2016.

“Renewable Energy Sources – Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy – Energy Information Administration.” EIA . US Energy Information Administration, 17 Mar. 2015. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.

Rosecrance, Richard, and Peter Thompson. “Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment.” Annual Review of Political Science 6.1 (2003): 7. UNEP . United Nations Environment Programme, 13 Oct. 2014. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.

“The Energy Story – Chapter 17: Renewable Energy vs. Fossil Fuels.” The Energy Story . California Energy Commission, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.

U.S. EPA. “Cleaning Up Toxic Air Pollution.” Benefits and Costs of Cleaning up Toxic Air Pollution (n.d.): n. pag. EPA . Environment Protection Agency. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.

World Health Organization. Renewable Energy (n.d.): 7. WHO . World Health Organization, 2012. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Somssich: Green hydrogen essential for energy revolution

I share the relief that all of us in New Hampshire felt when we heard that Granite Shore Power will be shutting down New England’s last coal-fired power plant in Bow. Many environmental groups and renewable energy advocates, including myself, have been lobbying for this to happen for more than a decade, and I thank 350NH for their persistent effort.  The fact that both Merrimack and Schiller Station are shutting down demonstrates the power of local organizing, but is also reflective of the unsustainable future of coal and other fossil fuels for our state and our country. Operating a coal plant for only 20 days in a year is a bad business model.

On the other hand, Ms. Beaulieu of 350NH, is selling the power of hydrogen energy short . 

In fact, Green Hydrogen (G-H2) will be a very essential player worldwide helping to decarbonize many energy sectors that other technologies aren’t able to address. That is why I am encouraged to hear that Granite Shore Power plans to be part of a renewable energy future by investing in solar energy and energy storage.

G-H2 is a carbon-free energy source with many applications and should be seriously considered. But only G-H2 is carbon emission free, because it is produced using only renewable energy such as solar and wind. Other forms of H2 production all generate carbon emissions at varying amounts. Because H2 can be both an energy storage (as gas or liquid) and an energy fuel allows it to serve many sectors of the economy such as aviation, shipping, heavy trucking, high-speed commuter rail, steel- and cement manufacturing. In those areas it is superior to lithium-ion batteries and EV transportation. 

Many countries including Australia and some in South Asia are converting G-H2 into liquid Green Ammonia, which is also a carbon-free fuel.  However, in the US many myths about H2 still persist.  Major US-based renewable energy organizations such as Union of Concerned Scientist and the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) have been educating our country about the benefits of G-H2. 

RMI published a list of 5 myths about hydrogen:  1) G-H2 can do it all !  Not necessarily. Only after reducing energy demand and using direct electrification where most efficient, should G-H2 be considered. 2) There is Clean Hydrogen! No, only G-H2 is carbon-free, all other H2 production generates carbon emissions. 3) H2 leakage can contribute indirectly to global warming ! This type of leakage can be stopped. But even with high leak rates, G-H2 has both short- and long-term benefits.  4) G-H2 is still decades away! No. In fact it is already technically feasible to implement by 2030, if enough demand is created.  5) G-H2 consumes too much water! No. The National Clean Hydrogen Roadmap targets 50 million metric tons of hydrogen annually produced by 2050, which would require 1 billion cubic meters of water, or 0.26% of current U.S. water consumption. Most water is used for irrigation, industrial cooling, and as cooling water for nuclear and fossil fuel energy facilities.  However, it is still critical to ensure that H2 production does not strain local freshwater resources. 

For all of these reasons, it is no surprise that the rest of world is already far ahead of us in exploring the possibilities for using G-H2.   Australia and some African countries have discovered that with enough solar energy and a nearby source of water (e.g. an ocean) they can produce large amounts of G-H2 and G-Ammonia.  Germany is already operating high-speed trains using hydrogen, while South Korea is converting commuter buses to use hydrogen. In Italy some pipelines already provide hydrogen for residential heating, and in Japan, Toshiba has a very large solar field that is producing G-H2, which is then compressed and is connected to a fuel-cell converter that provides electricity to the grid on demand. The safe use of H2 for industries, space exploration, and fuel-cell vehicles in California has already been demonstrated. 

So it is not surprising that President Joe Biden included several billions of dollars in the Inflation Reduction Act bill to create numerous H2 Energy Hubs to explore the best uses of G-H2.

The renewable energy transition may come sooner than we expect.  

Peter Somssich is a retired scientist with more than 40 years of experience in energy related work both for research and industrial use.   

Renewable Energy

Renewable energy comes from sources that will not be used up in our lifetimes, such as the sun and wind.

Earth Science, Experiential Learning, Engineering, Geology

Wind Turbines in a Sheep Pasture

Wind turbines use the power of wind to generate energy. This is just one source of renewable energy.

Photograph by Jesus Keller/ Shutterstock

The wind, the sun, and Earth are sources of  renewable energy . These energy sources naturally renew, or replenish themselves.

Wind, sunlight, and the planet have energy that transforms in ways we can see and feel. We can see and feel evidence of the transfer of energy from the sun to Earth in the sunlight shining on the ground and the warmth we feel when sunlight shines on our skin. We can see and feel evidence of the transfer of energy in wind’s ability to pull kites higher into the sky and shake the leaves on trees. We can see and feel evidence of the transfer of energy in the geothermal energy of steam vents and geysers .

People have created different ways to capture the energy from these renewable sources.

Solar Energy

Solar energy can be captured “actively” or “passively.”

Active solar energy uses special technology to capture the sun’s rays. The two main types of equipment are photovoltaic cells (also called PV cells or solar cells) and mirrors that focus sunlight in a specific spot. These active solar technologies use sunlight to generate electricity , which we use to power lights, heating systems, computers, and televisions.

Passive solar energy does not use any equipment. Instead, it gets energy from the way sunlight naturally changes throughout the day. For example, people can build houses so their windows face the path of the sun. This means the house will get more heat from the sun. It will take less energy from other sources to heat the house.

Other examples of passive solar technology are green roofs , cool roofs, and radiant barriers . Green roofs are completely covered with plants. Plants can get rid of pollutants in rainwater and air. They help make the local environment cleaner.

Cool roofs are painted white to better reflect sunlight. Radiant barriers are made of a reflective covering, such as aluminum. They both reflect the sun’s heat instead of absorbing it. All these types of roofs help lower the amount of energy needed to cool the building.

Advantages and Disadvantages There are many advantages to using solar energy. PV cells last for a long time, about 20 years.

However, there are reasons why solar power cannot be used as the only power source in a community. It can be expensive to install PV cells or build a building using passive solar technology.

Sunshine can also be hard to predict. It can be blocked by clouds, and the sun doesn’t shine at night. Different parts of Earth receive different amounts of sunlight based on location, the time of year, and the time of day.

Wind Energy

People have been harnessing the wind’s energy for a long, long time. Five-thousand years ago, ancient Egyptians made boats powered by the wind. In 200 B.C.E., people used windmills to grind grain in the Middle East and pump water in China.

Today, we capture the wind’s energy with wind turbines . A turbine is similar to a windmill; it has a very tall tower with two or three propeller-like blades at the top. These blades are turned by the wind. The blades turn a generator (located inside the tower), which creates electricity.

Groups of wind turbines are known as wind farms . Wind farms can be found near farmland, in narrow mountain passes, and even in the ocean, where there are steadier and stronger winds. Wind turbines anchored in the ocean are called “ offshore wind farms.”

Wind farms create electricity for nearby homes, schools, and other buildings.

Advantages and Disadvantages Wind energy can be very efficient . In places like the Midwest in the United States and along coasts, steady winds can provide cheap, reliable electricity.

Another great advantage of wind power is that it is a “clean” form of energy. Wind turbines do not burn fuel or emit any pollutants into the air.

Wind is not always a steady source of energy, however. Wind speed changes constantly, depending on the time of day, weather , and geographic location. Currently, it cannot be used to provide electricity for all our power needs.

Wind turbines can also be dangerous for bats and birds. These animals cannot always judge how fast the blades are moving and crash into them.

Geothermal Energy

Deep beneath the surface is Earth’s core . The center of Earth is extremely hot—thought to be over 6,000 °C (about 10,800 °F). The heat is constantly moving toward the surface.

We can see some of Earth’s heat when it bubbles to the surface. Geothermal energy can melt underground rocks into magma and cause the magma to bubble to the surface as lava . Geothermal energy can also heat underground sources of water and force it to spew out from the surface. This stream of water is called a geyser.

However, most of Earth’s heat stays underground and makes its way out very, very slowly.

We can access underground geothermal heat in different ways. One way of using geothermal energy is with “geothermal heat pumps.” A pipe of water loops between a building and holes dug deep underground. The water is warmed by the geothermal energy underground and brings the warmth aboveground to the building. Geothermal heat pumps can be used to heat houses, sidewalks, and even parking lots.

Another way to use geothermal energy is with steam. In some areas of the world, there is underground steam that naturally rises to the surface. The steam can be piped straight to a power plant. However, in other parts of the world, the ground is dry. Water must be injected underground to create steam. When the steam comes to the surface, it is used to turn a generator and create electricity.

In Iceland, there are large reservoirs of underground water. Almost 90 percent of people in Iceland use geothermal as an energy source to heat their homes and businesses.

Advantages and Disadvantages An advantage of geothermal energy is that it is clean. It does not require any fuel or emit any harmful pollutants into the air.

Geothermal energy is only avaiable in certain parts of the world. Another disadvantage of using geothermal energy is that in areas of the world where there is only dry heat underground, large quantities of freshwater are used to make steam. There may not be a lot of freshwater. People need water for drinking, cooking, and bathing.

Biomass Energy

Biomass is any material that comes from plants or microorganisms that were recently living. Plants create energy from the sun through photosynthesis . This energy is stored in the plants even after they die.

Trees, branches, scraps of bark, and recycled paper are common sources of biomass energy. Manure, garbage, and crops , such as corn, soy, and sugar cane, can also be used as biomass feedstocks .

We get energy from biomass by burning it. Wood chips, manure, and garbage are dried out and compressed into squares called “briquettes.” These briquettes are so dry that they do not absorb water. They can be stored and burned to create heat or generate electricity.

Biomass can also be converted into biofuel . Biofuels are mixed with regular gasoline and can be used to power cars and trucks. Biofuels release less harmful pollutants than pure gasoline.

Advantages and Disadvantages A major advantage of biomass is that it can be stored and then used when it is needed.

Growing crops for biofuels, however, requires large amounts of land and pesticides . Land could be used for food instead of biofuels. Some pesticides could pollute the air and water.

Biomass energy can also be a nonrenewable energy source. Biomass energy relies on biomass feedstocks—plants that are processed and burned to create electricity. Biomass feedstocks can include crops, such as corn or soy, as well as wood. If people do not replant biomass feedstocks as fast as they use them, biomass energy becomes a non-renewable energy source.

Hydroelectric Energy

Hydroelectric energy is made by flowing water. Most hydroelectric power plants are located on large dams , which control the flow of a river.

Dams block the river and create an artificial lake, or reservoir. A controlled amount of water is forced through tunnels in the dam. As water flows through the tunnels, it turns huge turbines and generates electricity.

Advantages and Disadvantages Hydroelectric energy is fairly inexpensive to harness. Dams do not need to be complex, and the resources to build them are not difficult to obtain. Rivers flow all over the world, so the energy source is available to millions of people.

Hydroelectric energy is also fairly reliable. Engineers control the flow of water through the dam, so the flow does not depend on the weather (the way solar and wind energies do).

However, hydroelectric power plants are damaging to the environment. When a river is dammed, it creates a large lake behind the dam. This lake (sometimes called a reservoir) drowns the original river habitat deep underwater. Sometimes, people build dams that can drown entire towns underwater. The people who live in the town or village must move to a new area.

Hydroelectric power plants don’t work for a very long time: Some can only supply power for 20 or 30 years. Silt , or dirt from a riverbed, builds up behind the dam and slows the flow of water.

Other Renewable Energy Sources

Scientists and engineers are constantly working to harness other renewable energy sources. Three of the most promising are tidal energy , wave energy , and algal (or algae) fuel.

Tidal energy harnesses the power of ocean tides to generate electricity. Some tidal energy projects use the moving tides to turn the blades of a turbine. Other projects use small dams to continually fill reservoirs at high tide and slowly release the water (and turn turbines) at low tide.

Wave energy harnesses waves from the ocean, lakes, or rivers. Some wave energy projects use the same equipment that tidal energy projects do—dams and standing turbines. Other wave energy projects float directly on waves. The water’s constant movement over and through these floating pieces of equipment turns turbines and creates electricity.

Algal fuel is a type of biomass energy that uses the unique chemicals in seaweed to create a clean and renewable biofuel. Algal fuel does not need the acres of cropland that other biofuel feedstocks do.

Renewable Nations

These nations (or groups of nations) produce the most energy using renewable resources. Many of them are also the leading producers of nonrenewable energy: China, European Union, United States, Brazil, and Canada

Articles & Profiles

Media credits.

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Last Updated

March 18, 2024

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

This Is the Future: Essay on Renewable Energy

Today the world population depends on nonrenewable energy resources. With the constantly growing demand for energy, natural gas, coal, and oil get used up and cannot replenish themselves. 

Aside from limited supply, heavy reliance on fossil fuels causes planetary-scale damage. Sea levels are rising. Heat-trapping carbon dioxide increased the warming effect by 45% from 1990 to 2019. The only way to tackle the crisis is to start the transition to renewable energy now. 

What is renewable energy? It is energy that comes from replenishable natural resources like sunlight, wind, thermal energy, moving water, and organic materials. Renewable resources do not run out. They are cost-efficient and renew faster than they are consumed. How does renewable energy save money? It creates new jobs, supports economic growth, and decreases inequitable fossil fuel subsidies. 

At the current rates of production, some fossil fuels will not even last another century. This is why the future depends on reliable and eco-friendly resources. This renewable energy essay examines the types and benefits of renewable energy and its role in creating a sustainable future.

Top 5 Types of Renewable Energy: The Apollo Alliance Rankings

There are many natural resources that can provide people with clean energy. To make a list of the five most booming types of renewable energy on the market today, this energy essay uses data gathered by the Apollo Alliance. It is a project that aims to revolutionize the energy sector of the US with a focus on clean energy. 

The Apollo Alliance unites businesses, community leaders, and environmental experts to support the transition to more sustainable and efficient living. Their expert opinion helped to compile information about the most common and cost-competitive sources of renewable energy. However, if you want to get some more in-depth research, you can entrust it to an essay writer . Here’s a quick overview of renewable energy resources that have a huge potential to substitute fossil fuels. 

Solar Renewable Energy

The most abundant and practically endless resource is solar energy. It can be turned into electricity by photovoltaic systems that convert radiant energy captured from sunlight. Solar farms could generate enough energy for thousands of homes.

An endless supply is the main benefit of solar energy. The rate at which the Earth receives it is 10,000 times greater than people can consume it, as a paper writer points out based on their analysis of research findings. It can substitute fossil fuels and deliver people electricity, hot water, cooling, heat, etc. 

The upfront investment in solar systems is rather expensive. This is one of the primary limitations that prevent businesses and households from switching to this energy source at once. However, the conclusion of solar energy is still favorable. In the long run, it can significantly decrease energy costs. Besides, solar panels are gradually becoming more affordable to manufacture and adopt, even at an individual level. 

Wind Renewable Energy

Another clean energy source is wind. Wind farms use the kinetic energy of wind flow to convert it into electricity. The Appolo Alliance notes that, unlike solar farms, they can’t be placed in any location. To stay cost-competitive, wind farms should operate in windy areas. Although not all countries have the right conditions to use them on a large scale, wind farms might be introduced for some energy diversity. The technical potential for it is still tremendous. 

Wind energy is clean and safe for the environment. It does not pollute the atmosphere with any harmful products compared to nonrenewable energy resources. 

The investment in wind energy is also economically wise. If you examine the cost of this energy resource in an essay on renewable resources, you’ll see that wind farms can deliver electricity at a price lower than nonrenewable resources. Besides, since wind isn’t limited, its cost won’t be influenced by the imbalance of supply and demand.

Geothermal Renewable Energy

Natural renewable resources are all around us, even beneath the ground. Geothermal energy can be produced from the thermal energy from the Earth’s interior. Sometimes heat reaches the surface naturally, for example, in the form of geysers. But it can also be used by geothermal power plants. The Earth’s heat gets captured and converted to steam that turns a turbine. As a result, we get geothermal energy.

This source provides a significant energy supply while having low emissions and no significant footprint on land. A factsheet and essay on renewable resources state that geothermal plants will increase electricity production from 17 billion kWh in 2020 to 49.8 billion kWh in 2050.

However, this method is not without limitations. While writing a renewable resources essay, consider that geothermal energy can be accessed only in certain regions. Geological hotspots are off-limits as they are vulnerable to earthquakes. Yet, the quantity of geothermal resources is likely to grow as technology advances. 

Ocean Renewable Energy

The kinetic and thermal energy of the ocean is a robust resource. Ocean power systems rely on:

• Changes in sea level;
• Wave energy;
• Water surface temperatures;
• The energy released from seawater and freshwater mixing.

Ocean energy is more predictable compared to other resources. As estimated by EPRI, it has the potential to produce 2640 TWh/yr. However, an important point to consider in a renewable energy essay is that the kinetic energy of the ocean varies. Yet, since it is ruled by the moon’s gravity, the resource is plentiful and continues to be attractive for the energy industry. 

Wave energy systems are still developing. The Apollo energy corporation explores many prototypes. It is looking for the most reliable and robust solution that can function in the harsh ocean environment. 

Another limitation of ocean renewable energy is that it may cause disruptions to marine life. Although its emissions are minimal, the system requires large equipment to be installed in the ocean. 

Biomass Renewable Energy

Organic materials like wood and charcoal have been used for heating and lighting for centuries. There are a lot more types of biomass: from trees, cereal straws, and grass to processed waste. All of them can produce bioenergy. 

Biomass can be converted into energy through burning or using methane produced during the natural process of decomposition. In an essay on renewable sources of energy, the opponents of the method point out that biomass energy is associated with carbon dioxide emissions. Yet, the amount of released greenhouse gases is much lower compared to nonrenewable energy use. 

While biomass is a reliable source of energy, it is only suitable for limited applications. If used too extensively, it might lead to disruptions in biodiversity, a negative impact on land use, and deforestation. Still, Apollo energy includes biomass resources that become waste and decompose quickly anyway. These are organic materials like sawdust, chips from sawmills, stems, nut shells, etc. 

What Is the Apollo Alliance?

The Apollo Alliance is a coalition of business leaders, environmental organizations, labor unions, and foundations. They all unite their efforts in a single project to harness clean energy in new, innovative ways. 

Why Apollo? Similarly to President John F. Kennedy’s Apollo Project, Apollo energy is a strong visionary initiative. It is a dare, a challenge. The alliance calls for the integrity of science, research, technology, and the public to revolutionize the energy industry.

The project has a profound message. Apollo energy solutions are not only about the environment or energy. They are about building a new economy. The alliance gives hope to building a secure future for Americans. 

What is the mission of the Apollo Alliance? 

• Achieve energy independence with efficient and limitless resources of renewable energy.
• Pioneer innovation in the energy sector.
• Build education campaigns and communication to inspire new perceptions of energy. 
• Create new jobs.
• Reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels. 
• Build healthier and happier communities. 

The transformation of the industry will lead to planet-scale changes. The Apollo energy corporation can respond to the global environmental crisis and prevent climate change. 

Apollo renewable energy also has the potential to become a catalyst for social change. With more affordable energy and new jobs in the industry, people can bridge the inequality divide and build stronger communities. 

Why Renewable Energy Is Important for the Future

Renewable energy resources have an enormous potential to cover people’s energy needs on a global scale. Unlike fossil fuels, they are available in abundance and generate minimal to no emissions. 

The burning of fossil fuels caused a lot of environmental problems—from carbon dioxide emissions to ocean acidification. Research this issue in more detail with academic assistance from essay writer online . You can use it to write an essay on renewable sources of energy to explain the importance of change and its global impact. 

Despite all the damage people caused to the planet, there’s still hope to mitigate further repercussions. Every renewable energy essay adds to the existing body of knowledge we have today and advances research in the field. Here are the key advantages and disadvantages of alternative energy resources people should keep in mind. 

Advantage of Green Energy

The use of renewable energy resources has a number of benefits for the climate, human well-being, and economy:

• Renewable energy resources have little to no greenhouse gas emissions. Even if we take into account the manufacturing and recycling of the technologies involved, their impact on the environment is significantly lower compared to fossil fuels. 
• Renewable energy promotes self-sufficiency and reduces a country’s dependence on foreign fuel. According to a study, a 1% increase in the use of renewable energy increases economic growth by 0.21%. This gives socio-economic stability.
• Due to a lack of supply of fossil fuels and quick depletion of natural resources, prices for nonrenewable energy keep increasing. In contrast, green energy is limitless and can be produced locally. In the long run, this allows decreasing the cost of energy. 
• Unlike fossil fuels, renewable energy doesn’t emit air pollutants. This positively influences health and quality of life. 
• The emergence of green energy plants creates new jobs. Thus, Apollo energy solutions support the growth of local communities. By 2030, the transition to renewable energy is expected to generate 10.3 million new jobs. 
• Renewable energy allows decentralization of the industry. Communities get their independent sources of energy that are more flexible in terms of distribution. 
• Renewable energy supports equality. It has the potential to make energy more affordable to low-income countries and expand access to energy even in remote and less fortunate neighborhoods. 

Disadvantages of Non-Conventional Energy Sources

No technology is perfect. Renewable energy resources have certain drawbacks too: 

• The production of renewable energy depends on weather conditions. For example, wind farms could be effective only in certain locations where the weather conditions allow it. The weather also makes it so that renewable energy cannot be generated around the clock. 
• The initial cost of renewable energy technology is expensive. Both manufacturing and installation require significant investment. This is another disadvantage of renewable resources. It makes them unaffordable to a lot of businesses and unavailable for widespread individual use. In addition, the return on investment might not be immediate.
• Renewable energy technology takes up a lot of space. It may affect life in the communities where these clean energy farms are installed. They may also cause disruptions to wildlife in the areas. 
• One more limitation a renewable resources essay should consider is the current state of technology. While the potential of renewable energy resources is tremendous, the technology is still in its development phase. Therefore, renewable energy might not substitute fossil fuels overnight. There’s a need for more research, investment, and time to transition to renewable energy completely. Yet, some diversity of energy resources should be introduced as soon as possible. 
• Renewable energy resources have limited emissions, but they are not entirely pollution-free. The manufacturing process of equipment is associated with greenhouse gas emissions while, for example, the lifespan of a wind turbine is only 20 years. 

For high school seniors eyeing a future rich with innovative endeavors in renewable energy or other fields, it's crucial to seek financial support early on. Explore the top 10 scholarships for high school seniors to find the right fit that can propel you into a future where you can contribute to the renewable energy movement and beyond. Through such financial support, the road to making meaningful contributions to a sustainable future becomes a tangible reality.

Renewable energy unlocks the potential for humanity to have clean energy that is available in abundance. It leads us to economic growth, independence, and stability. With green energy, we can also reduce the impact of human activity on the environment and stop climate change before it’s too late. 

So what’s the conclusion of renewable energy? Transitioning to renewable energy resources might be challenging and expensive. However, most experts agree that the advantages of green energy outweigh any drawbacks. Besides, since technology is continuously evolving, we’ll be able to overcome most limitations in no time.

Frequently asked questions

She was flawless! first time using a website like this, I've ordered article review and i totally adored it! grammar punctuation, content - everything was on point

This writer is my go to, because whenever I need someone who I can trust my task to - I hire Joy. She wrote almost every paper for me for the last 2 years

Term paper done up to a highest standard, no revisions, perfect communication. 10s across the board!!!!!!!

I send him instructions and that's it. my paper was done 10 hours later, no stupid questions, he nailed it.

Sometimes I wonder if Michael is secretly a professor because he literally knows everything. HE DID SO WELL THAT MY PROF SHOWED MY PAPER AS AN EXAMPLE. unbelievable, many thanks

You Might Also Like

New Posts to Your Inbox!

Stay in touch

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

AP®︎/College Environmental science

Course: ap®︎/college environmental science   >   unit 5.

• Renewable and nonrenewable energy resources

Renewable and nonrenewable energy sources

• Global energy use
• Intro to energy resources and consumption
• Nonrenewable energy sources are those that are consumed faster than they can be replaced. Nonrenewable energy sources include nuclear energy as well as fossil fuels such as coal, crude oil, and natural gas. These energy sources have a finite supply, and often emit harmful pollutants into the environment.
• Renewable energy sources are those that are naturally replenished on a relatively short timescale. Renewable energy sources include solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal energy. They also include biomass and hydrogen fuels. These energy sources are sustainable and generate fewer greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels.

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Opinion: To aid the green energy transition, we need to modernize our grid infrastructure

W hile it’s true that some things get better with age, the United States’ aging transmission infrastructure is not one of them. Updated transmission infrastructure is crucial to reducing emissions and ensuring dependable electricity service. Congress has passed green energy laws to help make this update happen, but now it’s up to a little-known government commission to fully realize the benefits of our transformational climate laws. And they need to act before it’s too late. 

It would be an understatement to say our country’s existing transmission infrastructure—the energy cables, towers and transformers that move energy between a generation system and the final distribution and use—is behind the times. Mostly built in the 1950s and ’60s, most of America’s transmission infrastructure has reached or outlived its useful life and is in dire need of upgrades.  

Our outdated infrastructure is not capable of meeting the needs of our communities, especially in the coming years as more sectors move toward electrified energy as a primary power source.  

Recent legislation like the  Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the bipartisan infrastructure lawhave super-charged our clean energy transition. Since the IRA’s passage, over  $421 billion has been invested in clean energy projects . But the electricity generated from those investments won’t be useful if we can’t connect it to consumers on the other end. 

Here are just a few reasons we need to upgrade our transmission infrastructure: 

The current transmission system is a major roadblock to meeting the Paris agreement goal to limit global warming to 1.5°C—a goal that will require us to cut nearly  60 percent  of our global greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. If we don’t plan and quickly build this, we won’t be able to transition to renewable energy on the timeline that is necessary to stave off the worst effects of climate change. 

We’re not keeping up with the renewable energy economy, because we’re not able to get energy to where it needs to go. Right now, two-thirds of U.S. renewable energy potential comes from just 15 states in the middle of the country. But most of that energy is consumed on the coasts. In order to keep up with a renewable energy economy, we need to expand these grid systems by  60 percent  by 2030 and triple system expansion by 2050. Better planned transmission can move power from generation to consumption more efficiently, while expanding capacity.  

Natural disasters and extreme weather are putting more pressure on the grid. During extreme heat or cold spells or floods, energy demand increases, driving prices up. Last year alone there were 28 extreme weather events in the United States that cost over  $1 billion , from Vermont’s catastrophic floods to Hawai’i’s devastating fires. Upgrading our transmission system would make our energy grid more resilient to changing weather and keep prices down for consumers. 

Finally, upgrading our transmission infrastructure would save consumers money. For lower-income Americans in New England, winter energy bills can make up  27 percent of income . Increased transmission capacity and renewable energy deployment could lower these bills by improving access to a diverse mix of clean energy.  

For all these reasons and more, we need to upgrade and expand our transmission capacity. But current regulations make it difficult to build out the necessary infrastructure to do that.  

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), a lesser known but important federal government agency, could greatly improve the situation by quickly finalizing a strong transmission planning and cost allocation rule it has been working on and is expected to discuss at next week’s special meeting. 

A robust final rule should require transmission regions to plan buildout for the long-term future, with the consideration of our renewable energy transition goals. It should also create a system for allocating costs of transmission construction based on benefits ratepayers will receive from the new infrastructure. FERC should also have a plan to deal with conflicts in the cost allocation process. 

Revitalizing a clean energy transmission system is within our reach, but there are major obstacles to the buildout of well-connected transmission that serves both metropolitan and rural areas alike, from Boston to Brattleboro.

Failing to modernize our out-of-date grid infrastructure is the No. 1 threat to the green energy transition. FERC must act and finalize this rule so we can modernize our transmission and energy systems before it’s too late. 

Peter Welch is the junior senator from Vermont.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.

Search the United Nations

• What Is Climate Change
• Myth Busters
• Renewable Energy
• Finance & Justice
• Initiatives
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Paris Agreement
• Climate Ambition Summit 2023
• Climate Conferences
• Press Material
• Communications Tips

What is renewable energy?

Renewable energy is energy derived from natural sources that are replenished at a higher rate than they are consumed. Sunlight and wind, for example, are such sources that are constantly being replenished. Renewable energy sources are plentiful and all around us.

Fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas - on the other hand, are non-renewable resources that take hundreds of millions of years to form. Fossil fuels, when burned to produce energy, cause harmful greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide.

Generating renewable energy creates far lower emissions than burning fossil fuels. Transitioning from fossil fuels, which currently account for the lion’s share of emissions, to renewable energy is key to addressing the climate crisis.

Renewables are now cheaper in most countries, and generate three times more jobs than fossil fuels.

Here are a few common sources of renewable energy:

SOLAR ENERGY

Solar energy is the most abundant of all energy resources and can even be harnessed in cloudy weather. The rate at which solar energy is intercepted by the Earth is about 10,000 times greater than the rate at which humankind consumes energy.

Solar technologies can deliver heat, cooling, natural lighting, electricity, and fuels for a host of applications. Solar technologies convert sunlight into electrical energy either through photovoltaic panels or through mirrors that concentrate solar radiation.

Although not all countries are equally endowed with solar energy, a significant contribution to the energy mix from direct solar energy is possible for every country.

The cost of manufacturing solar panels has plummeted dramatically in the last decade, making them not only affordable but often the cheapest form of electricity. Solar panels have a lifespan of roughly 30 years , and come in variety of shades depending on the type of material used in manufacturing.

WIND ENERGY

Wind energy harnesses the kinetic energy of moving air by using large wind turbines located on land (onshore) or in sea- or freshwater (offshore). Wind energy has been used for millennia, but onshore and offshore wind energy technologies have evolved over the last few years to maximize the electricity produced - with taller turbines and larger rotor diameters.

Though average wind speeds vary considerably by location, the world’s technical potential for wind energy exceeds global electricity production, and ample potential exists in most regions of the world to enable significant wind energy deployment.

Many parts of the world have strong wind speeds, but the best locations for generating wind power are sometimes remote ones. Offshore wind power offers t remendous potential .

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY

Geothermal energy utilizes the accessible thermal energy from the Earth’s interior. Heat is extracted from geothermal reservoirs using wells or other means.

Reservoirs that are naturally sufficiently hot and permeable are called hydrothermal reservoirs, whereas reservoirs that are sufficiently hot but that are improved with hydraulic stimulation are called enhanced geothermal systems.

Once at the surface, fluids of various temperatures can be used to generate electricity. The technology for electricity generation from hydrothermal reservoirs is mature and reliable, and has been operating for more than 100 years .

Hydropower harnesses the energy of water moving from higher to lower elevations. It can be generated from reservoirs and rivers. Reservoir hydropower plants rely on stored water in a reservoir, while run-of-river hydropower plants harness energy from the available flow of the river.

Hydropower reservoirs often have multiple uses - providing drinking water, water for irrigation, flood and drought control, navigation services, as well as energy supply.

Hydropower currently is the largest source of renewable energy in the electricity sector. It relies on generally stable rainfall patterns, and can be negatively impacted by climate-induced droughts or changes to ecosystems which impact rainfall patterns.

The infrastructure needed to create hydropower can also impact on ecosystems in adverse ways. For this reason, many consider small-scale hydro a more environmentally-friendly option , and especially suitable for communities in remote locations.

OCEAN ENERGY

Ocean energy derives from technologies that use the kinetic and thermal energy of seawater - waves or currents for instance -  to produce electricity or heat.

Ocean energy systems are still at an early stage of development, with a number of prototype wave and tidal current devices being explored. The theoretical potential for ocean energy easily exceeds present human energy requirements.

Bioenergy is produced from a variety of organic materials, called biomass, such as wood, charcoal, dung and other manures for heat and power production, and agricultural crops for liquid biofuels. Most biomass is used in rural areas for cooking, lighting and space heating, generally by poorer populations in developing countries.

Modern biomass systems include dedicated crops or trees, residues from agriculture and forestry, and various organic waste streams.

Energy created by burning biomass creates greenhouse gas emissions, but at lower levels than burning fossil fuels like coal, oil or gas. However, bioenergy should only be used in limited applications, given potential negative environmental impacts related to large-scale increases in forest and bioenergy plantations, and resulting deforestation and land-use change.

For more information on renewable sources of energy, please check out the following websites:

International Renewable Energy Agency | Renewables

International Energy Agency | Renewables

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change | Renewable Sources of Energy

UN Environment Programme | Roadmap to a Carbon-Free Future

Sustainable Energy for All | Renewable Energy

Renewable energy – powering a safer future

What is renewable energy and why does it matter? Learn more about why the shift to renewables is our only hope for a brighter and safer world.

Five ways to jump-start the renewable energy transition now

UN Secretary-General outlines five critical actions the world needs to prioritize now to speed up the global shift to renewable energy.

Climate issues

Learn more about how climate change impacts are felt across different sectors and ecosystems, and why we must nurture rather than exploit nature’s resources to advance climate action.

Facts and figures

• What is climate change?
• Causes and effects
• Myth busters

Cutting emissions

• Explaining net zero
• High-level expert group on net zero
• Checklists for credibility of net-zero pledges
• Greenwashing
• What you can do

Clean energy

• Renewable energy – key to a safer future
• What is renewable energy
• Five ways to speed up the energy transition
• Why invest in renewable energy
• Clean energy stories
• A just transition

Adapting to climate change

• Climate adaptation
• Early warnings for all
• Youth voices

Financing climate action

• Finance and justice
• Loss and damage
• $100 billion commitment
• Why finance climate action
• Biodiversity
• Human Security

International cooperation

• What are Nationally Determined Contributions
• Acceleration Agenda
• Climate Ambition Summit
• Climate conferences (COPs)
• Youth Advisory Group
• Action initiatives
• Secretary-General’s speeches
• Press material
• Fact sheets
• Communications tips

Arab States

Asia and the pacific, europe & central asia, latin america & the caribbean.

You’re using an outdated browser. Old browsers are unstable, unsafe and do not support the features of of this website. Please upgrade to continue.

Your browser does not support JavaScript. This site relies on JavaScript to structure its navigation and load images across all pages. Please enable JavaScript to continue.

What is climate change mitigation and why is it urgent?

• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Facebook
• Share on twitter
• Share via email

• Climate change mitigation involves actions to reduce or prevent greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.
• Mitigation efforts include transitioning to renewable energy sources, enhancing energy efficiency, adopting regenerative agricultural practices and protecting and restoring forests and critical ecosystems.
• Effective mitigation requires a whole-of-society approach and structural transformations to reduce emissions and limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
• International cooperation, for example through the Paris Agreement, is crucial in guiding and achieving global and national mitigation goals.
• Mitigation efforts face challenges such as the world's deep-rooted dependency on fossil fuels, the increased demand for new mineral resources and the difficulties in revamping our food systems.
• These challenges also offer opportunities to improve resilience and contribute to sustainable development.

What is climate change mitigation?

Climate change mitigation refers to any action taken by governments, businesses or people to reduce or prevent greenhouse gases, or to enhance carbon sinks that remove them from the atmosphere. These gases trap heat from the sun in our planet’s atmosphere, keeping it warm. 

Since the industrial era began, human activities have led to the release of dangerous levels of greenhouse gases, causing global warming and climate change. However, despite unequivocal research about the impact of our activities on the planet’s climate and growing awareness of the severe danger climate change poses to our societies, greenhouse gas emissions keep rising. If we can slow down the rise in greenhouse gases, we can slow down the pace of climate change and avoid its worst consequences.

Reducing greenhouse gases can be achieved by:

• Shifting away from fossil fuels : Fossil fuels are the biggest source of greenhouse gases, so transitioning to modern renewable energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal power, and advancing sustainable modes of transportation, is crucial.
• Improving energy efficiency : Using less energy overall – in buildings, industries, public and private spaces, energy generation and transmission, and transportation – helps reduce emissions. This can be achieved by using thermal comfort standards, better insulation and energy efficient appliances, and by improving building design, energy transmission systems and vehicles.
• Changing agricultural practices : Certain farming methods release high amounts of methane and nitrous oxide, which are potent greenhouse gases. Regenerative agricultural practices – including enhancing soil health, reducing livestock-related emissions, direct seeding techniques and using cover crops – support mitigation, improve resilience and decrease the cost burden on farmers.
• The sustainable management and conservation of forests : Forests act as carbon sinks , absorbing carbon dioxide and reducing the overall concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Measures to reduce deforestation and forest degradation are key for climate mitigation and generate multiple additional benefits such as biodiversity conservation and improved water cycles.
• Restoring and conserving critical ecosystems : In addition to forests, ecosystems such as wetlands, peatlands, and grasslands, as well as coastal biomes such as mangrove forests, also contribute significantly to carbon sequestration, while supporting biodiversity and enhancing climate resilience.
• Creating a supportive environment : Investments, policies and regulations that encourage emission reductions, such as incentives, carbon pricing and limits on emissions from key sectors are crucial to driving climate change mitigation.

Photo: Stephane Bellerose/UNDP Mauritius

Photo: La Incre and Lizeth Jurado/PROAmazonia

What is the 1.5°C goal and why do we need to stick to it?

In 2015, 196 Parties to the UN Climate Convention in Paris adopted the Paris Agreement , a landmark international treaty, aimed at curbing global warming and addressing the effects of climate change. Its core ambition is to cap the rise in global average temperatures to well below 2°C above levels observed prior to the industrial era, while pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C.

The 1.5°C goal is extremely important, especially for vulnerable communities already experiencing severe climate change impacts. Limiting warming below 1.5°C will translate into less extreme weather events and sea level rise, less stress on food production and water access, less biodiversity and ecosystem loss, and a lower chance of irreversible climate consequences.

To limit global warming to the critical threshold of 1.5°C, it is imperative for the world to undertake significant mitigation action. This requires a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 45 percent before 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by mid-century.

What are the policy instruments that countries can use to drive mitigation?

Everyone has a role to play in climate change mitigation, from individuals adopting sustainable habits and advocating for change to governments implementing regulations, providing incentives and facilitating investments. The private sector, particularly those businesses and companies responsible for causing high emissions, should take a leading role in innovating, funding and driving climate change mitigation solutions. 

International collaboration and technology transfer is also crucial given the global nature and size of the challenge. As the main platform for international cooperation on climate action, the Paris Agreement has set forth a series of responsibilities and policy tools for its signatories. One of the primary instruments for achieving the goals of the treaty is Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) . These are the national climate pledges that each Party is required to develop and update every five years. NDCs articulate how each country will contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhance climate resilience.   While NDCs include short- to medium-term targets, long-term low emission development strategies (LT-LEDS) are policy tools under the Paris Agreement through which countries must show how they plan to achieve carbon neutrality by mid-century. These strategies define a long-term vision that gives coherence and direction to shorter-term national climate targets.

Photo: Mucyo Serge/UNDP Rwanda

Photo: William Seal/UNDP Sudan

At the same time, the call for climate change mitigation has evolved into a call for reparative action, where high-income countries are urged to rectify past and ongoing contributions to the climate crisis. This approach reflects the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which advocates for climate justice, recognizing the unequal historical responsibility for the climate crisis, emphasizing that wealthier countries, having profited from high-emission activities, bear a greater obligation to lead in mitigating these impacts. This includes not only reducing their own emissions, but also supporting vulnerable countries in their transition to low-emission development pathways.

Another critical aspect is ensuring a just transition for workers and communities that depend on the fossil fuel industry and its many connected industries. This process must prioritize social equity and create alternative employment opportunities as part of the shift towards renewable energy and more sustainable practices.

For emerging economies, innovation and advancements in technology have now demonstrated that robust economic growth can be achieved with clean, sustainable energy sources. By integrating renewable energy technologies such as solar, wind and geothermal power into their growth strategies, these economies can reduce their emissions, enhance energy security and create new economic opportunities and jobs. This shift not only contributes to global mitigation efforts but also sets a precedent for sustainable development.

What are some of the challenges slowing down climate change mitigation efforts?

Mitigating climate change is fraught with complexities, including the global economy's deep-rooted dependency on fossil fuels and the accompanying challenge of eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. This reliance – and the vested interests that have a stake in maintaining it – presents a significant barrier to transitioning to sustainable energy sources.

The shift towards decarbonization and renewable energy is driving increased demand for critical minerals such as copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, and rare earth metals. Since new mining projects can take up to 15 years to yield output, mineral supply chains could become a bottleneck for decarbonization efforts. In addition, these minerals are predominantly found in a few, mostly low-income countries, which could heighten supply chain vulnerabilities and geopolitical tensions.

Furthermore, due to the significant demand for these minerals and the urgency of the energy transition, the scaled-up investment in the sector has the potential to exacerbate environmental degradation, economic and governance risks, and social inequalities, affecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and workers. Addressing these concerns necessitates implementing social and environmental safeguards, embracing circular economy principles, and establishing and enforcing responsible policies and regulations .

Agriculture is currently the largest driver of deforestation worldwide. A transformation in our food systems to reverse the impact that agriculture has on forests and biodiversity is undoubtedly a complex challenge. But it is also an important opportunity. The latest IPCC report highlights that adaptation and mitigation options related to land, water and food offer the greatest potential in responding to the climate crisis. Shifting to regenerative agricultural practices will not only ensure a healthy, fair and stable food supply for the world’s population, but also help to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  

Photo: UNDP India

Photo: Nino Zedginidze/UNDP Georgia

What are some examples of climate change mitigation?

In Mauritius , UNDP, with funding from the Green Climate Fund, has supported the government to install battery energy storage capacity that has enabled 50 MW of intermittent renewable energy to be connected to the grid, helping to avoid 81,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. 

In Indonesia , UNDP has been working with the government for over a decade to support sustainable palm oil production. In 2019, the country adopted a National Action Plan on Sustainable Palm Oil, which was collaboratively developed by government, industry and civil society representatives. The plan increased the adoption of practices to minimize the adverse social and environmental effects of palm oil production and to protect forests. Since 2015, 37 million tonnes of direct greenhouse gas emissions have been avoided and 824,000 hectares of land with high conservation value have been protected.

In Moldova and Paraguay , UNDP has helped set up Green City Labs that are helping build more sustainable cities. This is achieved by implementing urban land use and mobility planning, prioritizing energy efficiency in residential buildings, introducing low-carbon public transport, implementing resource-efficient waste management, and switching to renewable energy sources. 

UNDP has supported the governments of Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Indonesia to implement results-based payments through the REDD+ (Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries) framework. These include payments for environmental services and community forest management programmes that channel international climate finance resources to local actors on the ground, specifically forest communities and Indigenous Peoples. 

UNDP is also supporting small island developing states like the Comoros to invest in renewable energy and sustainable infrastructure. Through the Africa Minigrids Program , solar minigrids will be installed in two priority communities, Grand Comore and Moheli, providing energy access through distributed renewable energy solutions to those hardest to reach.

And in South Africa , a UNDP initative to boost energy efficiency awareness among the general population and improve labelling standards has taken over commercial shopping malls.

What is UNDP’s role in supporting climate change mitigation?

UNDP aims to assist countries with their climate change mitigation efforts, guiding them towards sustainable, low-carbon and climate-resilient development. This support is in line with achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to affordable and clean energy (SDG7), sustainable cities and communities (SDG11), and climate action (SDG13). Specifically, UNDP’s offer of support includes developing and improving legislation and policy, standards and regulations, capacity building, knowledge dissemination, and financial mobilization for countries to pilot and scale-up mitigation solutions such as renewable energy projects, energy efficiency initiatives and sustainable land-use practices. 

With financial support from the Global Environment Facility and the Green Climate Fund, UNDP has an active portfolio of 94 climate change mitigation projects in 69 countries. These initiatives are not only aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but also at contributing to sustainable and resilient development pathways.

Explore More Stories

Pacific shores, solar solutions: harnessing renewable energy in the pacific islands.

Photo: Yuichi Ishida/UNDP Timor-Leste

West Africa has great potential for solar energy. It’s time to release it.

Photo: UNDP Niger

Electric vehicles are driving a greener future in Viet Nam

Ho Tuan Anh delivers goods with his new e-motorbike. Photo by: Phan Huong Giang/UNDP Viet Nam

Why the Western Balkans are choosing decarbonization

Photo: UNDP Bosnia and Herzegovina

Six lessons on how to achieve future-smart energy efficient buildings 

Solar photovoltaic systems on roofs in Lebanon. Photo: Fouad Choufany / UNDP Lebanon

Six ways to achieve sustainable energy for all

Photo: UNDP Zimbabwe

Is Petroleum a Renewable Resource? its Nature and Impact

This essay about the renewable nature of petroleum argues that it does not qualify as a renewable resource due to its formation process over millions of years and its unsustainable extraction and consumption rates. It discusses the environmental impact of petroleum use, including carbon emissions and ecological damage, and advocates for a shift towards renewable energy sources like solar and wind power to ensure long-term sustainability and environmental stewardship.

How it works

Crude oil, commonly denoted as petroleum, stands as a pivotal energy font globally, propelling vehicles, warming residences, and materializing as a foundational ingredient for myriad chemical concoctions, encompassing plastics and pharmaceuticals. Given its ubiquitous utilization, a fundamental query surfaces concerning its viability: is petroleum indeed renewable?

To delve into this quandary, it becomes imperative to grasp the essence of a renewable asset. Renewable assets are those capable of self-replenishment over comparatively brief intervals. Illustrations encompass solar energy, wind, and biomass. These assets boast sustainability over protracted periods owing to their capacity for perpetual replenishment.

Contrarily, petroleum evades fitting within this rubric. Its genesis traces back to the remnants of primordial marine life forms such as zooplankton and algae. The fossilized remains of these organisms amassed in copious amounts on seabeds eons ago, subsequently ensconced beneath sedimentary layers, subjected to formidable heat and pressure across geological epochs. This intricate metamorphosis, culminating in oil formation, unfolds over millions of years. This protracted gestation period categorizes petroleum as a non-renewable asset.

The extraction and utilization of petroleum further accentuate its non-renewable essence. Upon extraction and consumption, its natural replenishment proves neither swift nor organic. The global consumption tempo of petroleum far outstrips the tardy geological mechanisms that might birth fresh oil reserves. This disjunction between formation and utilization paces renders petroleum a finite resource, portending eventual depletion.

The ecological repercussions of petroleum utilization furnish supplementary insights into the gravity of this discourse. Combusting petroleum releases copious volumes of carbon dioxide, a principal greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere, substantially fueling climate perturbations. The extraction modalities can precipitate environmental degradation, inclusive of oil spills and ecosystem upheaval. These ramifications intimate not only petroleum’s non-renewability but also the untenability of its ongoing utilization vis-à-vis environmental ramifications.

In response to these exigencies, a discernible drift towards alternative energy modalities is discernible. Renewable energy paradigms like solar, wind, and hydroelectric power are gaining ascendancy by proffering more sustainable conduits for satiating our energy requisites devoid of resource depletion or substantial environmental impairment. This transition encompasses the refinement of energy storage technologies and the phased replacement of internal combustion engines with electric vehicles.

The discourse surrounding petroleum and its renewable attributes transcends theoretical abstraction—it holds pragmatic ramifications for energy policies, economic schematics, and environmental delineations. Acknowledging petroleum’s non-renewable status compels governmental bodies, industries, and societal cohorts to contemplate more sustainable energy arrays that harmonize economic exigencies with environmental safeguarding.

In sum, petroleum emerges as a non-renewable asset. It embodies a finite entity forged amidst specific geological vicissitudes and over epochs extending millions of years. Its extraction and utilization, at current clip, evoke unsustainability both in terms of depletion and environmental toll. The future of energy, thus, lies in investment in and transition towards renewable assets capable of underpinning protracted, sustainable progress and advancement. As we forge ahead, the spotlight must increasingly pivot towards innovations in energy technology and policy reforms accentuating sustainability and environmental stewardship.

Cite this page

Is Petroleum a Renewable Resource? Its Nature and Impact. (2024, May 12). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/is-petroleum-a-renewable-resource-its-nature-and-impact/

"Is Petroleum a Renewable Resource? Its Nature and Impact." PapersOwl.com , 12 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/is-petroleum-a-renewable-resource-its-nature-and-impact/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Is Petroleum a Renewable Resource? Its Nature and Impact . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/is-petroleum-a-renewable-resource-its-nature-and-impact/ [Accessed: 15 May. 2024]

"Is Petroleum a Renewable Resource? Its Nature and Impact." PapersOwl.com, May 12, 2024. Accessed May 15, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/is-petroleum-a-renewable-resource-its-nature-and-impact/

"Is Petroleum a Renewable Resource? Its Nature and Impact," PapersOwl.com , 12-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/is-petroleum-a-renewable-resource-its-nature-and-impact/. [Accessed: 15-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Is Petroleum a Renewable Resource? Its Nature and Impact . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/is-petroleum-a-renewable-resource-its-nature-and-impact/ [Accessed: 15-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers