Introduction The contemporary scientific consensus is that the Earth’s average surface temperature is increasing significantly and it is caused by human actions (Climate Change, 2016). This would lead to several negative economic and social repercussions (Musk, 2015). In the light of the inevitability of an end to the supply of fossil fuels and of the considerable danger in not employing any mitigation efforts, this essay analyzes the reason why the transition to sustainable energy sources is being delayed. It is also presented the solution that would lead to the acceleration of transitioning from the use of fossil fuels to sustainable energy sources, such as wind, nuclear, solar and hydroelectrical.
Discussion
For hundreds of millions …show more content…
First, this transition is not a mere possibility, given that a finite source will eventually run out and thus the issue is whether to change only when there is no other option or not. Second, there is a range of economic repercussions to postponing the transition to a sustainable era. On a firm level, if the industry is not prepared when the supply of fossil fuels ends, several firms in this market will go bankrupt, which means a loss of many jobs and a significant economic loss for the country. On a global level, the increase in temperature will lead to up to 10% of the land being submerged, the area being resided by one third of the population (Musk, 2015), which would result in the displacement of over 2 billion people, the destruction of their homes and in entire countries, such as the Netherlands, being …show more content…
However, the reason is that there exists an enormous hidden subsidy to fossil fuel exploration. As shown previously, there is a high cost paid by society to their exploration, but companies must only incur a small fraction of it, because most of the cost comes from pollution, which does not appear in a company’s bills. Since companies are not being taxed for this cost, and therefore they do not have to pay for it, it is equivalent to a subsidy of the value of the costs that firms do not pay, which is estimated to be $5.3 trillion by the International Monetary Fund (Musk, 2015). Consequently, there is incentive in the industry for the exploration of fossil fuels and to resist the transition to sustainable
Discussion
For hundreds of millions …show more content…
First, this transition is not a mere possibility, given that a finite source will eventually run out and thus the issue is whether to change only when there is no other option or not. Second, there is a range of economic repercussions to postponing the transition to a sustainable era. On a firm level, if the industry is not prepared when the supply of fossil fuels ends, several firms in this market will go bankrupt, which means a loss of many jobs and a significant economic loss for the country. On a global level, the increase in temperature will lead to up to 10% of the land being submerged, the area being resided by one third of the population (Musk, 2015), which would result in the displacement of over 2 billion people, the destruction of their homes and in entire countries, such as the Netherlands, being …show more content…
However, the reason is that there exists an enormous hidden subsidy to fossil fuel exploration. As shown previously, there is a high cost paid by society to their exploration, but companies must only incur a small fraction of it, because most of the cost comes from pollution, which does not appear in a company’s bills. Since companies are not being taxed for this cost, and therefore they do not have to pay for it, it is equivalent to a subsidy of the value of the costs that firms do not pay, which is estimated to be $5.3 trillion by the International Monetary Fund (Musk, 2015). Consequently, there is incentive in the industry for the exploration of fossil fuels and to resist the transition to sustainable