In a word, nuclear. Unless we drastically reduce our power consumption to levels that are unacceptable to most people, we need some sort of base-load power source. The only base-load power source that is also zero carbon emission is nuclear, and we will need to get to zero carbon emissions to stave off climate change. Fossil fuels are not going to cut it, carbon capture is not going to cut it, renewables are not going to cut it. The only way wind and solar could hope to compete with nuclear in terms of effectiveness is if we had battery technology that has so far proven elusive, and even then the ecological impact of such batteries would most certainly not be minimal. You also have to consider the impact that wind and hydroelectric have on the environment and the negative impact of solar manufacturing. Wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal can supplement nuclear, but can't replace it. They can possibly sustain a grid in the exact right conditions (i.e. areas with a lot of sun exposure and a lot of wind, basically deserts), but for most of the world they're only supplements. Don't get me wrong, they're valuable supplements, but supplements nonetheless. This is all just talking fission, too, if we ever figure out fusion then forget it, that's the solution to all our problems.
Advances in transportation help, too. High speed rail would make a big difference in the U.S., assuming you could get people to use it. Air travel is one of the biggest polluters around, and providing an alternative to both that and driving would go a long way to reduce emissions. One of the challenges, though, is that when communities have been built up with a certain sort of transportation in mind, say cars, it's harder to fit a different form of transportation into them. You not only have to build new transportation in areas that lack it, and also build new communities with environmentally-friendly transportation in mind. This doesn't just mean trains, both high-speed long distance and shorter distance, but also things like accessibility for bikes and pedestrians, bus services and ride sharing, self-driving cars, and the proliferation of electric cars. Here's one area where solar, though it can't solve our energy problems, can still be a boon for the environment. Solar charging stations can reduce emissions even more, and it'll get even better when trucks and buses start going EV.
Speaking of which, one of the most problematic aspects remains industry, namely shipping and agriculture. I think things like drone delivery are going to help with the former. Another solution could be to try to produce more locally, start more urban agriculture, and generally reduce the distance produce and other food travels. This doesn't necessarily mean doing away with rural agriculture, it means buying more from rural areas that are closer to home. As far as the agriculture part goes, there are ways to reduce emissions but they require farmers to buy in. Carefully managing pesticide use and maximizing land use and soil fertility, not to mention implementing reduced emission equipment, could go a long way to reducing agricultural emissions. Reducing industrial cattle farming could help as well, but I don't see demand for cattle dropping enough in the near future to support that. Lab-grown meat could help reduce the amount of cattle raised.
One thing I don't think anybody's mentioned so far is housing reform. A growing number of Americans can't afford to live where they work. That means they commute, and that means emissions. Yes, transportation investment helps with this, but the fewer people who need to commute the easier it is to lower emissions. And finally, the more trees you plant the more carbon you sequester, and a carbon tax, though not an end-all solution, would be a great first step to reducing emissions.
Log in to comment