Analysis: This article highlights further the point made by President Obama in his article written in Science that the movement towards the pursuit of clean energy is irreversible. Government can help encourage the process by making regulations such as Clean Power Plan that discourages power plants with high pollutant rate to keep on operating on that level of pollution and to make faster change even before the economic pressure. It doesn't mean, however, without the backing of the government the pursuit of clean energy will disappear. It is concerning to note however, with such a rapid change in the industry, what will the fate of those who have been employed in the previous industrial sites of energy that have been forced to make the choice of shutting down or downsize? How will they transition in the economy successfully so that they are not without a job? Isn't making rapid change without a solid plan to back those whose jobs will be jeopardized irresponsible and further contribute to the resistance of change? New jobs does not equate the same people who lost their old ones getting them.
Big Takeaway: My biggest takeaway from this article is that no matter how great the intentions of and consequences of a change is, there will always be people who are negatively affected by them. The fact that movement towards clean energy to reduce the emission of GHG is a necessity is clear but the best ways in which to achieve them regarding the good of everyone who will be affected are not. Although it is impossible to completely eliminate a negative impact of a change, we can minimize it and I believe it is especially important for the climate change advocates to do just that. We are pushing for change regarding climate change in the argument of the benefit of everyone on the planet but we can't become hypocrites and abandon that message when reaping the benefits.
What will we do when we run out of natural gas?