A discussion concerning fossil fuels, the use of renewable energy and how to educate the public about climate change took place at the College of Law on Tuesday.
Cody Stewart, energy adviser for Gov. Gary Herbert; Matt Rush, business development manager for Chevron Energy Solutions; and Andrew Jorgensen, director of the U’s sociology program, discussed whether fossil fuels were essential to addressing climate change. Stewart and Rush said no, as the world will still be dependent on fossil fuels for decades to come.
“In the next 20 [or] 30 years, fossil fuels will continue to be the primary source for this country,” Stewart said. “Energy transitions take time. They take decades to occur.”
Jorgensen said although removing fossil fuels is a long-term goal, it is essential to addressing climate change. He said both private and public sectors and institutions like the U need to do a better job of speaking and listening to one another. Technology is not enough to solve the issue of global warming.
At Chevron, Rush said the cheapest form of energy is through efficiency. They look at ways to be as frugal as possible while looking at renewable energy and alternative technologies. These include new light bulbs or new sources of natural gas instead of diesel.
The standpoint of the Utah Legislature is to use cheap and viable technologies instead of dumping money that might not make a significant change in global warming in the long run, Stewart said. But Jorgensen said we have to be careful about relying on the role of technology.
“It’s just about cutting down how much energy we use,” Jorgensen said. “We don’t need technology to do that.”
To engage the public in energy consumption, Rush said there should be a heavy emphasis in science and technology in education and an effort to make sure students are educated on all of the issues in climate change. Jorgensen said educators can help community members know basic things they can do to help the cause, such as supporting local businesses.
Chevron is working with the U.S. Army to be at zero consumption of fossil fuels in the next 20 years by starting with the cheapest and most energy-efficient facilities possible and then bringing in renewable energy, such as wind power, Rush said.
Jared Fitzgerald, a first-year graduate student in sociology, said he was concerned about Rush and Stewart’s perspective as he felt it is important to understand the social well-being in climate change and not just the economic gain. He said the topic is difficult because an individual can change their way of living but cannot change the dependency on fossil fuels.
“Doing individual things is important, like using less water,” Fitzgerald said. “But no matter what I do, everything is made from petroleum fuels.”
Forum debates fossil fuels’ role in climate change
April 2, 2013
4
0
response to mr anonymous • Apr 3, 2013 at 2:53 pm
that is complete nonsense. scientific consensus does indeed exist regarding the human impacts on climate change. perhaps you don’t undestand what scientific consensus is or what it means.
response to mr anonymous • Apr 3, 2013 at 2:53 pm
that is complete nonsense. scientific consensus does indeed exist regarding the human impacts on climate change. perhaps you don’t undestand what scientific consensus is or what it means.
Mr. Anonymous • Apr 3, 2013 at 5:37 am
I’m open minded about climate change. I just get tired of people who say the scientific debate is over. Of course it isn’t over. Name a branch of science that accepts that concept. There aren’t any. For one thing, those same scientists tell us that the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines pumped more carbon emissions into the atmosphere than all of the man-made emissions since the dawn of the industrial revolution, and it had no appreciable effect on the global environment. That’s a fact. So don’t treat people like they are neanderthals for having questions. Please!
Mr. Anonymous • Apr 3, 2013 at 5:37 am
I’m open minded about climate change. I just get tired of people who say the scientific debate is over. Of course it isn’t over. Name a branch of science that accepts that concept. There aren’t any. For one thing, those same scientists tell us that the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines pumped more carbon emissions into the atmosphere than all of the man-made emissions since the dawn of the industrial revolution, and it had no appreciable effect on the global environment. That’s a fact. So don’t treat people like they are neanderthals for having questions. Please!