by Samantha Padreddii

Without the shadow of a doubt, producing energy is the cornerstone challenge in solving climate change. Especially in America, the second-highest emitter on the planet, transitioning away from non-renewable sources of energy, would decrease our emissions by 1.87 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. For context, 28% of our emissions that come from electricity is 'just barely' over the 1,692,794,839 metric tons that made up Russia's entire annual emissions in 2017. For context, Russia has the 10th highest emissions in the world. The power sector in America on its own is higher than the entire emissions of every single country, except 9. 

Emissions reduction and decarbonization isn't the easiest feat for several reasons. Let's start with logistical concerns before we get into political and social. Simply put, the United States has a large population and those people are really spread out. Take a look at this map of how many utility service territories make up our energy market. Each of these people uses more energy than almost every other country, other than Canada. In order to have grid reliability, we need to have the power capacity to match peak demand at all times, which makes intermittent power supplies like solar and wind hard to justify. It's a lot easier for city planners and utilities to build more cheap capacity (coal, natural gas) that can spur to life on whenever it's needed. Renewable technologies like wind, solar, and hydro, which I will get into more a bit later, aren't all lost, though. They just need storage technology. Batteries can be expensive and draining on the planet's lithium stores. Not to mention, in some climates, they simply don't make sense when paired with solar and wind due to long spells of latency. 

A huge factor in our energy grids decarbonization is decentralization. We need a smart-grid, sophisticated pricing, paired with varying sources of power, and system software to manage peak demand. With these tools, we can redirect energy from sources where it's not in use to where it's needed, and discourage consumers from using energy during the times of day where energy is in more demand. There isn't just one type of clean energy that can solve these problems, we're all faced with. Instead, there’s a lot of them, and they all need to work together. 

The key to solving these intricate puzzles is thoughtful planning. This brings us to our second challenge in the United States; the states themselves. The characteristic of our country that has laid the foundation for our identity can be a barrier to comprehensive climate policy. It's up to state leaders to guide their constituents towards a carbon-free future, and sometimes that discussion can be weighted firmly in the other direction. In places like Texas, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania, the largest producers of energy, most people are employed by oil companies. Those companies have deep-rooted ties at all levels of politics, and their businesses rely on a market devoid of environmental regulation. Beyond obvious lobbying, there is immense pressure on government officials to protect employment rates and the livelihoods of their constituents. The transition towards renewables relies on our ability to protect our planet, but also to provide support to the families caught in the crossfires of a mass economic evolution.

The effects of climate change unequivocally fall on the shoulders of minority and low socioeconomic communities, whose voices have been going largely unheard for years. See; Hurricane Katrina. Health concerns that coincide with pollution, weather changes, and access to food, which are exacerbated by a crumbling health care system. We've seen this play out on a massive scale as COVID-19 careens its way through vulnerable populations across America. For the most part, these communities have more pressing infrastructure to repair, than the broken energy system. They are largely exploited because of it, too. If the mass deployment of distributed clean energy were to happen in the next 10 years, it needs to be a just transition that includes all corners of our society.

A good example is, cities like New York are experimenting with community solar on public housing buildings, which sells the energy produced to nearby residents, resulting in additional income for the housing complex from unused roof space. We need to try social change structures that intersect all issues of income disparity, public health, and the environment, then amplify the ones that make a positive impact. It's worth remembering that, putting up the money now will be significantly less than the 10 trillion it's likely to cost us by 2090. 

Each level of government, private sector, non-profit, and individual citizen can play a role in this economic transition, if they choose to. To protect the planet and the people that live on it, our job is to rise to the challenge of the complexities of these solutions. Activists, organizers, and citizens need to make solutions obvious to elected officials, and advocate for programs that allocate money to the most impactful places, redirect jobs, and reduce emissions. We need to deploy solar, wind, and hydropower as fast as we possibly can, and rely on nuclear energy to cover the difference until we get there. We need to use software and integrated technology to help these systems communicate with each other so that we have all the energy we need, right when we need it. To do all of this, we need an administration that can effectively usher us into the green economy, and uplift local officials and their work. 

So, what’s the most important thing you can do in 2020 to save the planet? Vote. Pass legislation that works towards the Green New Deal. 1.87 billion metric tons of carbon, just in electricity alone, are at stake. 

Photographed by Samantha Padreddii