Alternative energy consists of renewable energies (solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass), plus nuclear energy. Renewable energy, according to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), is “often referred to as clean energy, [and] comes from natural sources or processes that are constantly replenished. For example, sunlight or wind keep shining and blowing, even if their availability depends on time and weather. Nuclear is not renewable and is not a fossil fuel. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), nuclear is an “energy source that has zero emissions, provides electricity around-the-clock and propels our society into the future.”
PRO
Proponents of alternative energy argue that renewable energies and/or nuclear energy are cleaner than fossil fuel energies, they won’t run out, and the maintenance requirements are lower. Additionally, alternative energy will save money, has health and environmental benefits, and decreases reliance on foreign energy sources.
CON
Opponents of alternative energy argue that there is a much higher upfront cost, the sun and wind are intermittent sources of energy and we do not yet have storage capabilities, so backup energies will be required, and there are geographic limitations, including environmental factors, that could prevent building big wind or solar farms.
Kerry Thoubboron, “Advantages and Disadvantages of Renewable Energy,” energysage.com, Oct. 25, 2018
Nuclear Energy Institute, “What Is Nuclear Energy?,” nei.org (accessed Sep. 16, 2020)
National Resources Defense Council, “Renewable Energy: The Clean Facts,” nrdc.org, June 15, 2018
2. 100% Renewable Energy
100% renewable energy is a goal shared by at least 160 American citites, 10 counties, and eight states as of Sep. 16, 2020, according to the Sierra Club. As a policy, 100% renewable energy means not using fossil fuel energy or nuclear energy, with a goal for implementation generally between 2035 and 2050.
PRO
Proponents of 100% renewable energy policies argue that it’s not about whether to convert to all renewable energies but how, because fossil fuels are not sustainable as fuels or as healthy options for humans or the environment.
CON
Opponents of 100% renewable energy policies argue that natural gas and/or nuclear power are necessary bridge fuels already in use with low carbon outputs that can help lower global temperatures quicker than renewables alone.
David Roberts, “A Beginner’s Guide to the Debate over 100% Renewable Energy,” vox.com, Feb. 6, 2018
Sierra Club, “Committed,” sierraclub.org (accessed Sep. 16, 2020)
3. Green New Deal
The Green New Deal is a piece of legislation proposed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) that outlines benchmarks for the US to meet in order to fight climate change. Those benchmarks include achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, job creation, infrastructure and industry investments, access to clean water and healthy food, and stopping oppression of marginalized communities.
PRO
Proponents of the Green New Deal argue that the country must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change in a way that avoids the worst consequences of global warming, while resolving social injustices that are inextricably exacerbated by climate change.
CON
Opponents of the Green New Deal argue that the plan is socialist and too far left of the mainstream, too vague with no specific plans about which energies to use, too costly with no plan for how to pay for everything, and that social justice issues should not be confused with climate change.
Linda Friedman, “What Is the Green New Deal? A Climate Proposal, Explained,” nytimes.com, Feb. 21, 2019
Ed Markey, “Senator Markey and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Introduce Green New Deal Resolution,” markey.senate.gov, Feb. 7, 2019
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, et al., “H. Res. 109,” congress.gov, Feb. 7, 2019
4. Net Zero Carbon
Net zero carbon, also called, net zero emissions or carbon neutrality, is a goal set by several climate proposals, including the Green New Deal, to balance any carbon emissions with the absorption of a comparable amount of carbon from the atmosphere in order to help reduce the global temperature by 1.5C, as directed by the Paris Agreement. Net zero can be achieved via offsets like tree-planting programs, carbon capture technologies, 100% renewable or clean energy plans, and other methods. Most plans call for net zero by 2050, though some set goals or benchmarks for earlier. As of Sep. 25, 2019, over 60 countries had committed to net zero carbon, accounting to 11% of global emissions. The biggest carbon emitters, China, United States, and India had not committed.
PRO
Proponents of net zero carbon policies argue that the world has to act now to get climate change under control and net zero policies are the key to any productive climate change plan.
CON
Opponents of net zero carbon polices argue that they are unrealistic grandstanding that distract from more achievable, sensible goals, and could do serious economic damage.
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, “Getting to Zero: A U.S. Climate Agenda,” c2es.org (accessed Sep. 16, 2020)
Megan Darby, “Which Countries Have a Net Zero Carbon Goal,” climatechangenews.com, June 14, 2019
Energy Climate and Intelligence Unit, “Net Zero: Why Is It Necessary?,” eciu.net (accessed Sep. 16, 2020)
Natascha Engel, “Net-Zero Carbon Target Is Reckless and Unrealistic,” thetimes.co.uk, Jun 28, 2019
Roger Pielke, “The World is Not Going to Halve Carbon Emissions by 2030, So Now What?,” forbes.com, Oct. 27, 2019
Steve Pye, “Countries Need to Move to Zero-Carbon Energy Now–Here’s Why,” blogs.scientificamerican.com, Apr. 19, 2017
Somini Sengupta and Nadja Popovich, “More Than 60 Countries Say They’ll Zero Out Carbon Emissions. The Catch? They’re Not the Big Emitters.,” nytimes.com, Sep. 25, 2019
5. Nuclear Energy
Debates about nuclear energy range from whether it should be included in green or clean plans as a non-renewable energy, whether nuclear power should be phased out of use, whether the US federal government should subsidize nuclear energy, and whether the expansion of nuclear energy contributes to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), “Nuclear energy comes from splitting atoms in a reactor to heat water into steam, turn a turbine and generate electricity. Ninety-four nuclear reactors in 28 states generate nearly 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, all without carbon emissions because reactors use uranium, not fossil fuels. These plants are always on: well-operated to avoid interruptions and built to withstand extreme weather, supporting the grid 24/7.”
PRO
Proponents of nuclear energy argue that the energy source is clean, has zero emissions, and is able to reliably support an electricity grid 25/7/365. Nuclear energy is a perfect complement to weather-dependent renewable energies that should be subsidized to replace fossil fuels. Further, nuclear energy protects national security interests by helping to maintain global non-proliferation standards.
CON
Opponents of nuclear energy argue that the energy is not clean because it leaves behind dangerous, radioactive nuclear waste that must be stored. Building new nuclear plants is expensive and subsidies should be directed to sustainable energies. Further, the danger of a nuclear meltdown like Fukushima or Chernobyl are always present, and any access to materials for nuclear power means nuclear weapons can be made.
Greenpeace, “Nuclear Energy,” greenpeace.org (accessed Sep. 16, 2020)
Nuclear Energy Institute, “What Is Nuclear Energy?,” nei.org (accessed Sep. 16, 2020)
6. Fossil Fuels
Fossil fuels are “[c]oal, crude oil, and natural gas are all considered fossil fuels because they were formed from the fossilized, buried remains of plants and animals that lived millions of years ago. Because of their origins, fossil fuels have a high carbon content,” according to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). In 2019, fossil fuels accounted for 80% of American energy consumption. The debates about fossil fuels are generally whether to phase them out entirely, continue to use them, or use cleaner versions while transitioning to alternative energies.
PRO
Proponents of fossil fuels argue that renewable energies are not ready for the market and fossil fuel energy is needed to keep affordable power in American homes. Fossil fuels can be collected and burned more cleanly in order to meet climate change goals.
CON
Opponents of fossil fuels argue that maintaining fossil fuel energy hampers energy progress and sets back climate goals unnecessarily. They maintain that the fossil fuel industry is greedy and doesn’t want to clean up its act, much less cede the way to alternative energy.
Scott Foster and David Elzinga, “The Role of Fossil Fuels in a Sustainable Energy System,” un.org (accessed Sep. 16, 2020)
National Resources Defense Council, “Fossil Fuels: The Dirty Facts,” nrdc.org, June 29, 2018
New York Times, “Climate and Energy Experts Debate How to Respond to a Warming World,” nytimes.com, Oct. 7, 2019
Jack Shapiro, “8 Reasons Why We Need to Phase Out the Fossil Fuel Industry,” greenpeace.org, Sep. 11, 2019
US Energy Information Administration, “Primary Energy Consumption by Source,” eia.gov, July 2020
7. “Clean Coal”
Coal is perhaps the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, but it accounted for 11.3% of US energy consumption in 2019, “clean coal” generally refers to carbon capture and storage (CSS), but can also mean wet scrubbers that remove sulfur dioxide, coal washing that removes soil and rock, or even the digitization of coal plants.
PRO
Proponents of clean coal argue that coal is readily available in the US and cheap compared to other energy sources. Coal already provides a lot of jobs, and clean coal technology could boost employment even more. Further, much of the world relies on coal and clean coal technology could lower emissions globally, helping to meet climate goals. Keeping US energy sources on US soil increases national security as well as US energy independence.
CON
Opponents of clean coal argue that there is no such thing. All coal is dirty and nonrenewable, because pollutants like sulfur dioxide and heavy metals linger in coal ash that is stored underground and seeps into ground water around coal plants. This pollution harms communities surrounding the plants, generally people of color. Natural gas has already sounded the death knells of coal and we shouldn’t try to resuscitate the dying industry with unproven technology.
Sarah Dowdey, “What Is Clean Coal Technology?,” science.howstuffworks.com (accessed Sep. 16, 2020)
EndCoal.org, “Myth 2: Coal Is Clean,” endcoal.org (accessed Sep. 16, 2020)
Dan Ervin, “The US Must Still Focus on Clean Coal Technologies,” realclearenergy.org, July 7, 2020
Natasha Geiling, “Clean Coal Is Not a Joke,” sierraclub.org, Sep. 25, 2018
David Grossman, “How Does Clean Coal Work?,” popularmechanics.com, Aug. 23, 2017
Kendra Pierre-Louis, “There’s No Such Thing as Clean Coal,” popsci.com, Oct. 13, 2017
Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute (RMCMI), “Clean Coal Technology,” rmcmi.org (accessed Sep. 16, 2020)
US Energy Information Administration, “Primary Energy Consumption by Source,” eia.gov, July 2020
Steven Winberg, “Clean Coal Is Crucial for American Jobs, Energy Security, and National Supply Chains,” energy.gov, June 26, 2020
8. Natural Gas
Natural gas is a fossil fuel, increasingly collected via hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Natural gas is the most used fossil fuel in the US, accounting for 32.04% of American energy consumption in 2019. Debates about natural gas center on whether the fossil fuel should be used as a bridge or transition fuel as we phase out coal and oil and phase in alternative energies.
PRO
Proponents of natural gas argue that the fossil fuel is necessary as a practical bridge fuel in the transition to renewable energies because of the intermittency of solar and wind especially. Natural gas is a clean fossil fuel that can remain in use after the demise of coal and oil.
CON
Opponents of natural gas argue that natural gas is a dirty energy that not only does not bridge the transition to renewable energies but hampers the efforts. Climate goals are looming and there is no time for fossil fuels that take time and money away from clean energy.
American Petroleum Institute (API), “API Statement on Climate Proposal from House Select Committee,” apr.org, June 30, 2020
Michael Gerrard, “When Gas Gets Serious about Phasing Out Natural Gas,” acoel.org, May 27, 2020
Brian Kahn, “Please, for the Love of All Things Holy, Stop Pretending Natural Gas Is a ‘Transition Fuel,'” earther.gizmodo.com, Feb. 20, 2020
New York Times, “Climate and Energy Experts Debate How to Respond to a Warming World,” nytimes.com, Oct. 7, 2019
David Roberts, “More Natural Gas Isn’t a ‘Middle Ground’–It’s Climate Disaster,” vox.com, May 30, 2019
US Energy Information Administration, “Primary Energy Consumption by Source,” eia.gov, July 2020
Sam Winstel, “Common Sense Approach to Reliable, Low-Emissions Energy,” api.org, July 31, 2020
9. Fracking
Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) is a method of extracting natural gas from deep underground via a drilling technique. First, a vertical well is drilled and encased in steel or cement. Then, a horizontal well is drilled in the layer of rock that contains natural gas. After that, fracking fluid is pumped into the well at an extremely high pressure so that it fractures the rock in a way that allows oil and gas to flow through the cracks to the surface. The debate around fracking starts with whether the use of natural gas should end or increase and continues to whether the practice is safe in and of itself.
PRO
Proponents of fracking argue that fracking is safe and has allowed the United States to produce and export much more natural gas, which has increased national security and moved the country toward energy independence.
CON
Opponents of fracking argue that the practice is not safe because it pollutes groundwater, increases greenhouse gases, and causes earthquakes. Further, the country should transition away from natural gas, not increase its use.
David Blackmon, “‘No New Fracking’ – Be Careful What You Wish For,” forbes.com, Mar. 16, 2020
Environment America Research & Policy Center, “Fracking by the Numbers: The Damage to Our Water, Land and Climate from a Decade of Dirty Drilling,” environmentamerica.org, Apr. 14, 2016
Independent Petroleum Association of America, “Hydraulic Fracturing,” ipaa.org (accessed Sep. 17, 2020)
Marc Lallanilla, “Facts about Fracking,” livescience.com, Feb. 10, 2018
Bernie Sanders, “Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez Lead First-Ever Bill to Ban Fracking Nationwide,” sanders.senate.gov, Jan. 31, 2020
10. Carbon Pricing
Carbon pricing is a market-based strategy to control the rise of greehouse gases. Generally, companies are charged for the carbon they emit, either through a carbon tax, which sets a direct cost for greenhouse gas emissions or the carbon content of fossil fuels, or a cap and trade system, which puts a limit (cap) on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions a company can emit and allows lower emitters to sell their extra emissions allowance to higher emitters.
PRO
Proponents of carbon pricing argue that putting a market-based price on emissions can not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but by allowing emitters to choose how to reduce their emissions, carbon pricing can create competitive innovation in the field, benefitting climate change plans.
CON
Opponents of carbon pricing argue that taxes and cap and trade programs penalize those without the financial resources to switch to renewable energies, could result in higher costs for consumers, and carbon pricing creates a system to be gamed by lobbyists, resulting in no change in emissions.
Philip Booth and Jamie White, “Debate: The Pros and Cons of Carbon Taxes,” iea.org, Nov. 6, 2018
Helen Mountford, “A Carbon Price Can Benefit the Poor while Reducing Emissions,” wri.org, Dec. 15, 2018
World Bank, “Pricing Carbon,” worldbank.org (accessed Sep. 17, 2020)
