| Muck and Mystery Loitering With Intent |
blog - at - crumbtrail.org |
A problem with politicized authoritarians is that they believe in magic, in effect believe in a sky daddy that can save them from whatever if they only demand it. That this hasn't worked anywhere or anywhen since they learned to wipe their own butts does not deter them. This is part of a presentation given by Sherwood F. Rowland of U.C. Irvine:
In order to stabilize the increase in carbon dioxide (at a much higher level than it is now), we would need to cut back 60% of our output. Conservation can help, but it is unlikely that conservation itself can take us to a sustainable situation. Alternative carbon free energy sources like solar, nuclear, and wind must be explored, but we must understand that we are in a situation that requires immediate action.This is what Joi Ito concludes after hearing that presentation:
One important "take-away" from this meeting was that global warming and the risk did not seem like some sort of disputed theory as some politicians seem to lead us to believe. All of the scientists involved in energy and ecology that I heard speaking seemed to believe that our earth was immediately at risk and that we had to act now. The combination of the increase in population and our addiction to energy would not allow us to stabilize at any sustainable equilibrium without drastic changes in the way we make and use energy.The theory is disputed because it is sparse, incomplete and can't establish causation, not because people don't understand the greenhouse effect or doubt that it exists. What is not demonstrated in any credible way is that there have been changes so far than can be solely attributed to GHGs or that models which assume this are sensible in any way. It isn't just politicians that say these things but it is politicians like Ito that claim this is so.
The earth is not "immediately at risk" now any more than it has ever been and always will be. It was "immediately at risk" by this usage 200 years ago. Throwing a tantrum and insisting that "we have to act now" ignores the niggly little problem that we don't have any solutions yet, that the sensible action at this time is to seek them while not messing our pants.
We are not addicted to energy, we are what we are because we use energy, figured out how to use fire and became human. It is just stupid to seek to reduce energy use or "cure our addiction". The sensible approach, the one in progress now as it has been for centuries, is to invent ever better ways to harness energy in greater amounts, using fewer resources, generating fewer byproducts, while using that energy ever more effectively.
The climate will never "stabilize at any sustainable equilibrium", that's not how climates work. Even Mars has climate change. What we may be able to do in time is to take charge and manage our climate; warm or cool it as desired by tinkering with a variety of factors, everything from albedo to atmospheric composition. Defining which of our natural climate states will be chosen is a problem. Would we rather have a climate like it is now or like it was some time in the past? Would we like to grow wine in UK or ice skate on the Thames, as has occurred at various times in the fairly short history of that place?
Naive politicized nutters like Ito are irrelevant, spoiled children in the back seat whining "are we there yet". We need much more energy to improve the lot of the majority of humans who currently suffer grievously for lack of it, and that much improvement again to serve the needs of the increased number of humans expected. To do this we need better technologies. We know this and are hard at work developing them. If the spoiled children would grow up a bit and help instead of hindering society the task would be a little easier, but it will happen whether they ever quit whining or not.