Currently 46 cities in the US have committed to going 100% clean energy by 2035, and in the last week St. Louis has added itself to the list, and is among the largest cities to do so (Salter 2017). The decision of St. Louis to go energy clean is especially significant when considering its history: a community with long ties to coal. In fact, St. Louis is the corporate headquarters for the largest coal companies in the United States, including Peabody Energy and Arch Coal (Salter 2017). Furthermore, St Louis also has a history of air pollution violations with regular remediation requirements given by the EPA. Although city pledges for renewable energy are an amazing prospect, they raise two main questions: Is 100 % renewable energy realistic and are these pledges misleading.
The main issue leading to the need for renewable energy is the large emission of carbon into our atmosphere and the damage that’s following. From a geological standpoint, examining the history of the world, we are not currently in a “hot period”. Nevertheless, our actions, primarily those of non-renewable energy that release greenhouse gases into our atmosphere result in an increase of the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increase, the temperature of the Earth rises, which contributes to the warming of the ocean, which in turn release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, causing the temperature to further rise (Natural Environment Research Council). This process is known as feedback. Not only is that generally bad and contributing to global warming, but more dangerously, it contributes to the rise of natural disasters, which we have all seen first-hand in the recent months in terms of hurricane. The warmer the oceans, the faster winds blow and that raises the likelihood of a tropical disturbance, which can of course grow into a hurricane (Siegel 2017).
To answer the two main questions posed at the beginning, sustainable energy is realistic and the pledges are not entirely misleading; however, there is a length process ahead of us and one that is more needed now than ever. The decarbonization process is going to involve an enormous amount of electrification (Roberts 2017). The clear sources of carbon free energy are the sun and wind; however, those are not reliable in the way we’re used to. In other words, grid operators cannot turn them on and off as necessary (Roberts 2017). Therefore, to balance out variations in these resources, we need to find dispatchable carbon free resources to ensure reliability. One potential resource is nuclear power, which has further controversies associated with it. Therefore, the main issue is finding resources to compensate and truly make the decarbonization process possible and reliable. The damage has already been done as seen by data showing the truth behind global warming and the natural disasters we’ve seen with our very eyes. The next steps are making the pledges into reality.

Natural Environment Research Council. (2017). What causes the Earth’s climate to change?
Retrieved October 28, 2017, from
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html
Roberts, D. (2017, April 07). Is 100% renewable energy realistic? Here’s what we know.
Retrieved October 28, 2017, from https://www.vox.com/energy-and-
environment/2017/4/7/15159034/100-renewable-energy-studies
Salter , J. (2017, October 27). St. Louis sets 100 percent renewable energy goal; now at 5.
Retrieved October 28, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/st-louis-sets-
100-percent-renewable-energy-goal-now-at-5/2017/10/27/b5053e4a-bb59-11e7-9b93-
b97043e57a22_story.html

Siegel, E. (2017, September 11). Now Is Absolutely The Time To Politicize Hurricane Irma
And Other Natural Disasters. Retrieved October 28, 2017, from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/11/now-is-absolutely-the-time-to-
politicize-hurricane-irma-and-other-natural-disasters/#54317be55406