1

The University of California, Santa Barbara

U.S. Energy and Climate Change

How Government Should Address Rising Global Temperatures

Author: Chris Keeley

chriskeeley@ucsb.edu
Writing 50E
Professor Frank
4/30/2019
 2

Summary of Findings

Climate change has become an issue of national importance. National and global temperatures

have been increasing drastically in the last several decades and the rate at which they rise is

accelerating. Because energy is so vital to a healthy economy, any national policy changes must

be made considering both the national economy as well as climate change. Adopting a wind and

solar centered policy would be too much of a shock to the national economy. Nuclear energy,

while economically viable, still has risks associated with possible plant failures-which could have

catastrophic consequences from radioactive fallout. The most realistic course of action to

combat climate change would be to favor natural gas over other fossil fuels, while continuing to

focus on the eventual large-scale implementation of nuclear energy and possibly other clean

energy sources.
 3

Table of Contents

Summary of Findings………………………………………………………………………………...…………………………………….page 2

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….page 4

Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases……………………………………………………………………..…………………..page 5

Fossil Fuel-The Basis of US Energy…………………………………………………………………….…………………………….page 6

Coal…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………page 6

Oil………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………….page 7

Natural Gas………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………….page 8

The Future of US Energy: Nuclear Energy and a Note On Clean Energy ……………………………….…………page 10

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………page 12

Works Cited…………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………….page 15
 4

Introduction

In today’s world, the economic success of a country is based on its ability to organize its

production of goods around efficiency and quality, so that it may participate in mutually

beneficial trade and establish itself as an economic hub for investors; then ideally it can grow

bigger and more powerful. A country can become a keystone in the international economy by

specializing in food produce, technology, defense, or a variety of other things. However, for

every step a country takes to grow, more energy will be needed.

In need of vital energy, countries turn to the most cost-efficient mode of production:

fossil fuels. Deposited in immense quantities across the world, known fossil fuel stocks are

expected to last us well into the twenty-first century. The economic explosion that has propelled

industrial growth for the past two centuries was built on the desperate seizing of fossil fuel-rich

areas by both private corporations and nation states alike, with the need to remain competitive

eclipsing thoughts of possible repercussions.

In the last couple of decades, however, the need for a new approach to energy has

become apparent. As the world’s energy consumption has increased, the atmosphere’s ability to

offset the effects of the pollution released as a result has been exhausted. The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency1 has recorded a temperature increase of 0.29 to 0.46ᵒF every

decade since 1979 in each of the 48 contiguous US states. Now scientists from across the world

are calling upon governments to act before this global crisis worsens.

In the future, it will be vital that the United States replaces fossil fuel energy with cleaner

types of energy like solar, wind, or nuclear power, but there is still no plan for this transition.
 5

Before this can be done, a national consensus will have to be reached on the direction of U.S.

energy requirements. Unfortunately, the state of modern politics has delayed action on this

issue, and a comprehensive plan remains an uncertainty. Because of this disparity between the

actions the scientific community is demanding and the actions that legislators are willing to take,

a middle ground must be found. Any plan to eventually adopt clean energy will have to be

implemented over a period such that short-term interests of companies and legislators are not

completely ignored, and future needs of the country and world are still met.

Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases

The changes that have occurred in global temperatures are the result of gas particles

being released into the atmosphere, the majority of which come from the burning of fossil fuels

to produce energy. Different kinds of greenhouse gases have different effects on climate change.

The two factors that account for these differences are resident times and radiative forcing.

“Relative Contributions of Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Global Warming” 2 by the climate

researcher Daniel Lashof describes a particles’ resident time as the amount of time it can be

expected to stay in the atmosphere before being reabsorbed into the earth through natural

processes (2). A greenhouse gas particle only poses a threat in terms of climate change for as

long as it is in the atmosphere, where it can trap energy radiating from the sun and prevent it

from radiating back out into space, a process known as the greenhouse effect. The process of

keeping energy from leaving the atmosphere is known as radiative forcing (2). Lashof highlights

CO2 as a particularly dangerous greenhouse gas, this is because unlike other greenhouse gasses,
 6

CO2 does not get destroyed by natural environmental processes. Even if a CO2 particle has left

the atmosphere, it can still reenter in the future and cause further damage (2).

Fossil Fuel: The Basis of U.S. Energy

Many reasons for our continued dependence on fossil fuels exist: the infrastructure to

mine such resources is already in place, energy operates as a keystone in national economies

and efforts to change how energy is obtained may negatively impact a country’s economy,

energy companies wield enormous influence and operate with stakeholder’s interests in mind,

etc. All factors must be considered to decide on the best path in terms of national policy.

Coal

Coal likely poses the most danger of any fossil fuel in terms of climate change; its burning

releases high amounts of CO2 gas into the atmosphere resulting in strong radiative forcing. This

factor makes coal one of the most threatening greenhouse gases. Coal also serves as an energy

staple in the US, where approximately 25% of the world’s known coal reserves are located. “Our

Energy Sources” 3 by The National Academies notes that in 2015, energy from fossil fuels

accounted for a total of 81% of national energy consumption. Coal, the cheapest fossil fuel per

energy content, accounted for about 16% of total national energy in 2015, with nearly all of it

being used for domestic electricity generation (3).

Despite coal making up a relatively small proportion of our total energy consumption,

contributing less to our annual energy consumption than either oil or natural gases, it is a
 7

difficult resource to phase out. This is because coal energy accounts for 33.2% of US electricity-

more than nuclear, renewable clean energy, or any other fossil fuel (3). If the US were to try and

quickly phase out coal as an energy resource, a plan would have to be in place to ensure

Americans still have access to affordable energy.

Further complicating things, many local US economies are fully dependent on the

continued extraction and use of coal. It is common for local economies that were built on coal to

fall apart if the industry leaves the area. The U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics4 notes that of March

2019, the coal industry employs 52.7 thousand people as miners. These people often support

single-income households on their working-class salaries and are among the most susceptible

demographic to static unemployment (4). Any plan to adopt cleaner energy will have to take the

well-being of those whose industries are being replaced into serious consideration, along with

the well-being of our environment and those affected by climate change.

Oil

The U.S. Energy Information Administration5 describes crude oil existing as a mixture of

hydrocarbons in underground deposits can be extracted and refined into petroleum products

such as fuel grade oil (5)(6). As pointed out in “The Chemistry and Technology of Petroleum” 7 by

James Speight, refining crude oil into petroleum fuel products is a relatively new process, with

many of the key advancements being made in the 20th century. Speight goes on to note that as

the industry ages, new milestones will be reached that will keep oil as an enticing energy source

in terms of cost.
 8

Despite being a relatively new energy resource, due to its abundance and high energy

content, oil has become the world’s most common source of energy (7). Compared to coal, oil

releases relatively little CO2 into our atmosphere and is a cleaner source of energy in terms of

climate change. However, this difference is far from enough to make oil a viable energy option

into the extended future.

This is a cause for concern, as current projections suggest national oil consumption will increase

20% by 2040 (3).

Oil is the most common source of energy nationally and is already responsible for 36% of

national energy consumption (3), so any plan to replace coal energy with petroleum energy

would still result in the release of dangerous amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere

over the next few decades.

Natural Gas

Natural gas refers to gaseous fossil fuel trapped in underground rock formations like

shale. In Substitution of Natural Gas for Coal8, University of Illinois Professor Katherine Hayhoe

states that the primary method for natural gas extraction is fracking, which implements hydraulic

pressure to break apart rock. The invention of fracking has allowed for many previously

inaccessible deposits of natural gas to be mined. However, fracking is relatively new, and Hayhoe

emphasizes that many questions remain unanswered regarding its effects on surrounding areas.

There are concerns that the process can damage water supplies, crops, or cause earthquakes-

more time will be needed to collect enough data to know the exact effects of fracking.
 9

Despite the uncertainty surrounding the effects of fracking, natural gas is a decidedly

cleaner energy source than either coal or oil. The viability of natural gas as an effective source of

energy is also tried and proven; energy from natural gas is already responsible for 29% of our

national energy consumption (3).

The Following Charts Compare Coal and Greenhouse Gas in terms of efficiency and emissions

In this bar graph, a Typical

Gas-Fired Power Plant refers
to a standard natural gas
powerplant. A Typical
Natural Gas Combined-Cycle
Power Plant refers to a
natural gas powerplant that
uses its heat output to spin a
turbine. (From “Our Energy
Sources-The National
Academies” 3).

This chart plots out the differences in greenhouse gas emissions between natural gas processing and coal
processing. (From “Substitution of Natural Gas for Coal: Climatic Effects of Utility Sector Emissions” 9).
 10

The number of people in the oil and gas pipeline construction industry as of February

2019 was 185.7 thousand (4). As of the same date, the number of people in the mining and oil

and gas field machinery industry was 78.1 thousand (4). The number of people in these

industries makes it appear that a change in either may lead to massive unemployment. However,

the natural gas and crude oil industries hold many similarities, with advancements in one often

leading to advancements in the other because of the similarities in methods associated with

each (5). Because of this, if one industry were to be favored over the other in the future, it

wouldn’t be as hard for workers to adjust. This ability to adapt between industries gives those in

the oil and gas industries a distinct advantage in being able to find employment compared to

those in the coal mining industry.

The Future of US Energy

Nuclear energy, and a note on alternative clean energy

Nuclear energy has been a topic of controversy since its conception. While other

methods of producing energy result in the release of harmful greenhouse gases, nuclear fission

produces nuclear waste. Because of this, nuclear energy holds more potential than any other

energy source in terms of slowing and eventually stopping climate change.

The main concerns towards nuclear energy are the stability of the reactors and the

management of the nuclear waste that results from the nuclear fission process. The problem

with the stability of a nuclear reactor is that if an accident occurs, nuclear fission is not a process

that can simply be stopped. In their paper “Organizational Processes and Nuclear Power Plant

Safety” 9, Berkeley Professors Rick Jacobs and Sonja Haber describe the nuclear industry as a
 11

“process driven” industry, meaning that once the process has begun there it is too late to stop it

and it must go to completion. This is in direct contrast to most other energy plants, which are

manufacturing in nature, meaning they can be stopped should it be needed (9). This is standard

for industries that deal with large amounts of stored energy. Because of this, in a potentially

catastrophic event like an earthquake, a nuclear reactor may become damaged and release

radioactive fallout into the surrounding area.

Such catastrophic instances have happened before and are largely responsible for the

hesitation governments have with increasing their utilization of nuclear energy. “Nuclear Energy

in the Post Fukushima Era” 10 by Zeng Ming describes the worldwide response to the Fukushima

reactor meltdown in 2011 as a temporary halt in advancement and a long-term halt in the

acceleration of advancement, meaning that it is unlikely we can implement nuclear energy on a

lerge scale in the near-future. In the wake of the Fukushima incident both Japan and Germany

proposed to turn away from nuclear energy, setting a precedent that nuclear is not a viable

energy option (10). Since then, the state of nuclear energy worldwide has largely remained

stagnant. Nuclear energy is currently responsible for 9.5% of the US energy supply (3), with no

great shifts in nuclear power production expected for the next twenty years (5).

This image depicts radioactive

fallout spilling into the pacific
ocean as a result of the
Fukushima meltdown (Japan is
situated at the top left corner
of the highlighted nuclear
fallout). (Image from Nuclear-
News11).
 12

Ultimately, to implement a plan that shifts national requirements towards nuclear energy

would likely be too difficult because of the concerns surrounding nuclear energy. Perhaps

nuclear energy will be perfected in the coming decades and widely held beliefs towards them

will change. Until then, nuclear energy use will have to remain largely consolidated.

On the topic of alternative clean energy, wind and solar energy exist as a comparatively

expensive alternatives to other energy sources. Wind and solar will continue to grow and

improve in capability, but these things will take time. Because the issue of climate change needs

to be addressed swiftly, it is best that national policy focuses on other options while still

encouraging the further research, development, and implementation of alternative clean energy.

Conclusion

Considering all aspects of the issue of climate change prevention, national policy should

implement the gradual replacement of coal and oil energy with that of natural gas in the

immediate future and a shift towards nuclear energy in the distant future.

Three main factors lead to this conclusion: impact on climate, impact on American jobs,

and ease of implementation.

It is most important to minimize the effects of climate change. Consequently, it was

decided that steps must be taken to move national energy dependence away from the top

polluters (coal and oil) and towards cleaner options (natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, etc.)

Unfortunately, switching away from coal will leave many Americans unemployed, and measures

would have to be taken to ensure these peoples and communities are not neglected. The switch
 13

away from oil should not be as difficult, since the oil and gas industries are similar and those in

one can be expected to adjust and find jobs in the other.

Thus, a plan implementing the replacement of other fossil fuels with natural gas to scale

back greenhouse gas emissions in the immediate future and the eventual replacement of natural

gas dependency with nuclear energy and possibly other clean energies is the best route for the

US.

This plan should aim to phase out coal entirely within the next thirty years, in accordance

with how long the U.S. can realistically make such a dramatic shift. This should leave enough

time for cleaner sources of energy to phase in before global climates begin to have a runaway

affect and methods of particle-removal would have to be used. During the national transition

from coal energy to natural gas energy, resources will have to be put into place to avoid a large-

scale wave of unemployment resulting from the shrinking of the coal industry. If each coal miner

were to receive 25,000 dollars annually in different forms of support for 5 years once they leave

the industry, then it can be expected that the total cost of relief for this effort would be 6.6

billion dollars. If the shift from coal to natural gas were to happen at a constant rate during the

thirty-year transition period, then the annual cost to the federal government would be 220

million dollars.

After Coal has been replaced by natural gas, a massive increase in our dependence on

emissions-free energy needs to begin. Nuclear energy is the most viable option for this, and

thirty years is expected to be enough time10 for fears of nuclear energy to largely fade and for
 14

many of the dangers of nuclear energy to be mitigated to where nuclear energy is a popular

course of action with the public. The plan is outlined below.

•Begin replacing coal energy with natural gas energy

•Each year 220 million will be spent to support those recently
2020 unemployed in the coal industry

•Halfway through the transition, 3.3 billion will have been spent on
supporting ex-coal miners
•By this point, improving the future capablitities of clean energy
2035 sources should be emphasized by national policy

•By this year, coal energy should be completely removed from our
nations energy budget
•At this point, the main objective is to transition away from fossil fuels
2050 entirely and towards cleaner energy, primarily nuclear.
 15

Works Cited
(1) US EPA, OA. “Climate Change Indicators: U.S. and Global Temperature.” Reports and Assessments.
US EPA, June 24, 2016. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-
indicators-us-and-global-temperature.

(2) Lashof, Daniel A., and Dilip R. Ahuja. “Relative Contributions of Greenhouse Gas Emissions to
Global Warming.” Nature 344, no. 6266 (April 1990): 529–31.
https://doi.org/10.1038/344529a0.

(3) “Our Energy Sources — The National Academies.” Accessed April 24, 2019.
http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/energy-sources/.

(4) “U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.” Accessed April 22, 2019. https://www.bls.gov/home.htm.

(5) “U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).” Accessed April 25, 2019. https://www.eia.gov/.

(6) Tissot, B. P., and D. H. Welte. Petroleum Formation and Occurrence. Springer Science & Business
Media, 2013.

(7) Speight, James G. The Chemistry and Technology of Petroleum. CRC Press, 2014.
https://doi.org/10.1201/b16559.

(8) Hayhoe, Katharine, Haroon S. Kheshgi, Atul K. Jain, and Donald J. Wuebbles. “Substitution of
Natural Gas for Coal: Climatic Effects of Utility Sector Emissions.” Climatic Change 54, no.
1 (July 1, 2002): 107–39. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015737505552.

(9) Jacobs, Rick, and Sonja Haber. “Organizational Processes and Nuclear Power Plant Safety.”
Reliability Engineering & System Safety 45, no. 1–2 (January 1994): 75–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(94)90078-7.

(10) Ming, Zeng, Liu Yingxin, Ouyang Shaojie, Shi Hui, and Li Chunxue. “Nuclear Energy in the Post-
Fukushima Era: Research on the Developments of the Chinese and Worldwide Nuclear
Power Industries.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (May 1, 2016): 147–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.165.

(11) “Massive Transport of Nuclear Waste Crossing the Ocean from Fukushima.” Nuclear-News (blog),
September 4, 2014. https://nuclear-news.net/2014/09/04/massive-transport-of-nuclear-waste-
crossing-the-ocean-from-fukushima/.