The Difference Between Renewable and Sustainable

Climate change, renewable energy, green this, eco that … We are constantly flooded with information about the need to shift towards a different, planet-friendly economy in order to preserve the atmospheric condition in which life as we know it can thrive.

And it’s true.

However, the media is fragmented, conflicting interests clash and everyone is learning and making mistakes in the process. Just remember how much controversy there is about climate science and you get an idea as to how complex thinking about these issues, let alone writing and legislating about them, is.

The concept of renewable energy is also multi-faceted. Renewable, in the context of energy, refers to fuels whose supplies are not based on a finite reserve, like fossil fuels are. For instance, solar power is renewable because the sun will probably outshine the human presence on this planet for millions and millions of years – literally.

Wind is also renewable because it will continue to blow. Wind is just transformed solar energy, says Tom Rand in his book Kick The Fossil Fuel Habit – 100 Technologies To Save The World. It is “the expansion and contraction of the air that has been heated by the sun and then cooled”, Rand explains. That sounds like renewable to me.

Biofuels are renewable because we can plant more of the stuff and therefore renew its production cycle indefinitely, at least in principle. Geothermal (geo-exchange) is also renewable because it taps the energy that sits just below the earth’s surface in order to cool or heat buildings, without depleting anything. Hydropower (dams) is also, at least officially, renewable, although changes in precipitation may affect areas that rely on it.

So, all the above is renewable. But – is it also sustainable? That’s where the problem begins. If we define sustainable as any method of production that does not affect the environment and the welfare of living beings, then we can’t always equate renewable with sustainable. The problem is that existing technology to harness the power of renewable sources is still in its infancy and is not as efficient and clean as it should be. Yet.

The best example of this paradox is biofuel, which used to be an emblem of alternative fuels and is now looked upon with suspicion by environmental and food security campaigners. Biofuels can compete with food land and also drive deforestation, they say, with facts to back their claims. The issue has become so serious that in countries like the United Kingdom there are organizations opposing subsidies to agrofuels, as they call it, due to all the misery they cause – including more climate disruption.

UK-based Friends of the Earth recently released a report warning that the “European Union’s renewable fuel target is driving land grabs in Africa that threaten the environment and local communities”. Even the UK government’s in-house climate advisors recently said that current biofuel targets for transport are too high at 10%.

In Brazil, the construction of Belo Monte, a massive dam in the Amazon region, is the subject of fierce controversy, one that has attracted the support of filmmaker James Cameron, due to land displacement and biodiversity issues raised by the project. Expect an Avatar-style battle over it.

Still in South America, Save America’s Forests warns that San Rafael Falls, Ecuador’s tallest waterfall, is threatened by a Chinese-funded hydroelectric project, The 1,500 megawatt Coca-Codo Sinclair Hydroelectric Project will divert water flow away from the 480-foot San Rafael Falls, leaving it “high and dry”, they say, and also threatens the biodiversity of the Sumaco Biosphere Reserve.

Wind gets into trouble as well. In Scotland, Sheringham Shoal offshore wind farm has been accused to be the possible cause of the death of 33 seals whose bodies were found mutilated. The company denied the accusations. In Portugal, environmentalists say a wind farm in Alvaiázere threatens bats already faced with extinction.

And the list goes on.

What conclusion can we reach from all this? The advantages that renewable energy offer, and the sheer necessity to replace fossil fuels with a cleaner alternative, validate them. But careful assessments of their viability and, most importantly, sustainability, must be carried out, always. Perhaps in our eagerness to be clean we sometimes hasten to celebrate any energy with the renewable tag attached to it. But we must careful not to jump from the frying pan into the fire. The primary goal and raison d’être of renewable energy is to arrive at a point when renewable does equate with sustainable. We must not settle for anything less than that.

Article by Antonio Pasolini, a Brazilian writer and video art curator based in London, UK. He holds a BA in journalism and an MA in film and television.

Have any Question or Comment?

6 comments on “The Difference Between Renewable and Sustainable

I agree with you Antonio. Renewable cannot always be sustainable (especially for biofuel and disastrous Belo Monte), however it is true that Renawables cannot be as devastating as hybrocarbons for instance. Unfortunately animals die but I am sure that some measures can be taken to prevent their death.

What oil and gas do is 100 hundred times more dangerous (animals too die of lung cancer). Living in a clean environment is “vital”.

Thanks for your comment Paride. Absolutely, I do believe that all the current negatives associated with some types of renewable energy can be fixed and that nothing is worse than fossil fuel. It’s important, though, that we keep pushing ourselves to the highest standard, always.

For starters, I think it would have been prudent to offer definitions of the operatives and ‘sustainable/sustainability/sustainable development’, in this read.

..:: Sustainability ::..

Anything that can go on being done on an indefinite basis is sustainable.

..:: Sustainable Development ::..

Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. – Brundtland Report, 1987

Sustainable development intersects when Triple Bottom Line (TBL) of people, planet and profit. Or, to say it another way, social progress recognizes the needs of all stakeholders, effectively protects the environment, makes prudent use of natural resources, and maintains a high and stable level of economic growth and employment.


Can you explain how the wind farm whose blades are in the air can be linked with seal deaths which are in the water or on the ground?

Hello Kitegirl: the windfarms are in question are offshore, but it wouldn’t be the blades that would be causing the harm, but the traffic generated by the operation. Here’s an excerpt from an article:

“It is thought that the seals have fallen victim to boats with ducted propellers, which have a non-rotating nozzle. The propellers are surrounded by metal casing, which allows greater fuel efficiency for boats with heavy loads.

The injuries are thought to occur when the mammals are sucked into the propeller and ejected at the other end, causing the tell-tale deep, smooth, spiral cut.

Death is caused by massive tissue damage and loss of blood. Dr David Thompson of the seal mammal research unit in St Andrews said: ‘We don’t think the deaths are being caused by wind farms per se – but there may be a link with the traffic associated with them. ”

So far it’s just a suspicion, but it’s important to look into such cases to make sure clean tech does not cause harm.

Full story:

Do you know the difference?…

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

Comments are closed for this post !!
Skip to toolbar