I was reading this blog post from David Brin recently, and started thinking about this issue again (his discussion of climate change is in the second half of the post). Especially look at the 9th and following comments after the post ("The wheels are coming off the global warming bandwagon..."). Brin slaps the guy down pretty hard, and I understand his frustration. It is amazing to me that there are intelligent people who are still arguing about whether we are affecting the climate.
I am not an expert in climate science (no one person really can be) but virtually every credible source agrees now that we are affecting the temperature of the planet. My favorite book on the subject is Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers. He lays out the arguments pretty fairly, including the problems climate models have with clouds and the effect of contrails. Most of the energy companies are even seeing the light and making plans for a low-carbon energy future (there was a YouTube recording of a BP meeting where the chief scientist of BP was talking in reasonable terms about climate change, but I can't find it now).
All the debate about whether global warming is happening is a distraction from the important policy questions we should be asking:
1) What are the best case and worse case scenarios for the effect this change is going to have on our civilization? How much CO2 is too much?
2) How much will it reasonably cost for a certain reduction in CO2 and other greenhouse gases?
3) How much can we do with current technology to curb the problem? Do we need to invest more in engineering or research?
These are just a few of the many questions we should be asking instead of having debates about whether the problem is real.
What do you guys think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think one problem is some of these problems are political.
2) How much will it reasonably cost for a certain reduction in CO2 and other greenhouse gases?
Are we assuming China, India, and the rest of the developing world starts buying scrubbers for coal plants and the like? To be fair, China has higher gas mileage standards than the US, but they are builing lots of coal plants right now. Good luck getting them to stop. In the US we could raise the gas tax to discourage use, but that hits poor folks disproportionately. Public transit in the US isn't practical for lots of working folks. Smart car rentals may help out here, but I don't know if the market exists (I'm ignorant about a lot of things).
Some buildings are going greener. However, it is unlikely we will replace all major buildings in the next ten years, so this probably just makes the second derivative negative. There's also NIMBY. A solar power company in Los Gatos, CA had to take off their own roof panesl because it didn't meet aestetic regulations.
I don't dispute any of those points, but they have often been used to justify doing nothing. Is that your position?
I think that if the US creates the technology and does the hard work of testing it, then the Indians and the Chinese will get on board. I also think that lowering the second derivative (rate of acceleration) is better than nothing.
My point is that we aren't even asking the questions right now, and no one knows when the point of irreparable harm to our civilization might come. It might already be too late to avoid the planet's climate changing drastically. If that is true, then we need to get to work on mitigation. On the other hand, we may be able to stabilize our emissions in ten, twenty or fifty years and avoid serious repercussions.
Its time for a new debate, IMO, and its not about whether we should do something, but what we should do and how fast.
I don't dispute any of those points, but they have often been used to justify doing nothing. Is that your position?
It is my position that if by making small sacrifices we will achieve almost nothing, and by making large sacrifices we will achieve almost nothing (plus some small epsilon), then it's reasonable to question large sacrifices. However,
I think that if the US creates the technology and does the hard work of testing it, then the Indians and the Chinese will get on board.
if this is true, then investing in cleaner technology is a good idea. Since I've supported a CA group attempting to get subsidies for solar power, we can conclude I agree with you on this. While I think governments should tread lightly in established markets, I think they should help foster new markets.
I also think that lowering the second derivative (rate of acceleration) is better than nothing.
I agree. While it may be irrelevant (drop g from 9.8 m/s^2 to 9.0 and a 40 m fall will still hurt like hell), I don't think that's a good reason to not try. To tie in with Valerie's TV post, if you're falling off a cliff, you might as well try to fly. You've got nothing to lose.
Its time for a new debate, IMO, and its not about whether we should do something, but what we should do and how fast.
Increase mileage standards. Fusion power is still a long shot ('In 30 years' may be another fundamental constant), but the payoff is enough to make it worth funding. Increase funds for alternative energy research. I'd pay for this by dropping farm subsidies, but there's no way that will happen.
The mad scientist in me wants to put reflective particles in the troposphere to increase the earth's albedo, but that's probably one of the dumbest ideas I've ever had.
Post a Comment