This week, as reported by Andy Revkin, entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson said something heroically, world-historically stupid: “If we could come up with a geoengineering answer to this problem, then Copenhagen wouldn’t be necessary. We could carry on flying our planes and driving our cars.” Sir Richard was talking about removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. He’s not alone. The authors of the upcoming book SuperFreakonomics also think that geoengineering is a cheap, easy way to avoid the work of fashioning a more sustainable society. (See Joe Romm for much, much more on the errors in that book.)
I’ve been writing too many wordy posts lately, so instead, here are some pictures. These first two come from the preface of Gus Speth‘s book The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability. Pardon the somewhat crude scans.
Notice a theme?
This one is from our story on a recent paper in Nature: “Planetary Boundaries: A Safe Operating Space for Humanity.”
© 2009 Grist Terms of Use.
If you cannot see this graphic, please see this one.
Lesson: the problems humanity faces are systemic and interrelated. The idea that sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere will save us is akin to the hope that a math equation can be solved by erasing one of the numbers.
Documentary examines geoengineering and the checkered history of weather modification
SuperFreak Dubner embraces ClimateGate conspiracy theories
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 8:44 pm
16 Oct 2009
http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/10/transgressing-identified-and-quantified.html
The nitrogen cycle debacle is mostly the result of agriculture, as is biodiversity loss, come to think of it.
"..Now, largely because of a rapidly growing reliance on fossil fuels and industrialized forms of agriculture, human activities have reached a level that could damage the systems that keep Earth in the desirable Holocene state.."
The answer? Burn in our cars a blend of the products of "..fossil fuels and industrialized forms of agriculture."
... brilliant. I don't see how we will get there from here. If we can find a way to make fuel out of stupidity our energy problems would be over. Although, one could argue that a fuel made out of stupidity is an acceptable definition for corn ethanol.
Permalink
kkloor Posted 7:13 am
17 Oct 2009
At some point, Grist will constructively join this debate, rather than trying to shut it down. Perhaps after Copenhagen or Congress passes climate legislation?
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:43 am
17 Oct 2009
I think Dave is trying his best to convey a very complex topic in as simple a manner as possible to get the point across to as many readers as possible. Pictures and graphs have always been great way to do that. And if this isn't constructively joining into the geoengineering debate, I don't know what is.
The main point of this post is that geoengineering to remove CO2 or leave the CO2 and just cool the planet (dumping junk into the atmosphere, pumping CO2 from coal plants underground, or dumping iron into the oceans, and on and on) would only attempt to address one of the nine thermometers, and would in all likelihood end up making some things worse.
As always, I'll use today's food-based biofuels as an example. If you envision them as a form of geoengineering you can see that they make several of the other thermometers hotter. Branson wants to burn biofuel in his jets.
Not to mention, geoengineering has little to do with adaptation as I understand the definition. Adaptation is adapting to live with global warming (building dikes, mass migration, more air conditioning, whatever).
Permalink
digitaldante Posted 9:11 am
17 Oct 2009
Clearly air capture has implications for the other nine thermometers--if it works, we might just keep burning coal and oil until we've ripped every speck out of the ground that we can. On the other hand, even if we could go 100% renewable electricity and electric cars today, we'll deal with decades or more of continued warming as the earth's climate slowly stabilizes at the unprecedented CO2 levels we already have today. Even with a low-carbon or no-carbon economy, air capture might be a useful way to deal with the aftereffects of the last several centuries of fossil fuel abuse. Now, we could argue about whether that is a good idea or whether we should allow the earth's climate to digest all this extra CO2 naturally. But that's the argument we should be having instead of dragging out the 10 thermometers chart every time geoengineering comes up.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 8:11 pm
19 Oct 2009
Good point, it's a catch 22 situation.
Permalink
Billhook Posted 8:18 am
20 Oct 2009
After all, both the science, and the developing countries, and EU states and others, are demanding 25% to 40% from developed nations, just to have an even chance of avoiding catastrophic climate destabilization.
That is, to face a climate roulette with just one cartridge in a double barrelled weapon.
So whose children is it aimed at ? Everyones'.
If American activists, NGOs and politicians cannot get Obama to face down Big Fossil and offer a serious cut, by what right do those people object to Geo-engineering per se ? There is not even a visible willingness to explore the criteria for the selection of techniques - which looks like a simple lack of resolve in facing the issue.
To put it plainly, we are talking of trying to avoid an unprecedented scale of genocide-by-famine, led by the USA, and I hear no alternative proposals on this the prime US Enviros' site.
Well down the thread below this reply I've posted an outline of a sustainable geo-engineering proposal concerning Afforestation for Biochar, and it would be good to see constructive responses to it, be they anti or pro.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
Michael Tobis Posted 12:02 pm
17 Oct 2009
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 1:49 pm
17 Oct 2009
Permalink
GreeningTX Posted 7:56 pm
17 Oct 2009
Google Books has the full text: http://books.google.com/books?id=qTy684W9LNQC&dq=Global+Change+and+the+Earth+System:+A+Planet+Under+Pressure&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=eILaSpy8PI6k8Ab90-i2BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 10:36 pm
17 Oct 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:52 pm
17 Oct 2009
Capitalists like Branson, Gates, and Khosla still haven't understood what these graphs mean? Just how did they acumulate billions of dollars? It's a real mystery. How in the world are they getting beaten by commies at the worldwide game of global capitalism?
But then there is Warren Buffet, the most successful capitalist in history. He seems to get it. He is buying into China's plan. Is he secretly a commie? Hehehey. Pickens seems to partially understand it too.
Have you seen the GM ad for their newest product? It boasts the biggest engine in any half ton pickup. And we the people just bailed them out.
Maybe it would be good to make a list of major companies, capitalists, and planned economies that get it, and a list of those who don't. Just to keep score.
Permalink
wderyckx Posted 8:10 am
18 Oct 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:37 am
18 Oct 2009
And a byproduct of biodigestion is biogas, a clean efficient energy source, especially when it is used in a solid oxide fuel cell/turbine cogeneration system at 70% efficiency.
Furthermore, the algae filtered from waterways can be shunted into solar collectors that use the CO2 from fuel cells to enhance algal growth rate. The CO2 is then sequestered by the algae, the algae then give up their CO2 in the biodigestion cycle or as animal feed supplement or sequester the CO2 when used as soil amendment.
Renewable energy, climate change mitigation, and organic fertilizer all go together can restore the 20 foot thick prairie soil that sod busters found when they first got here. That's a lot of CO2 sequestration potential.
So how does this not sink in at the policy level of government or the board room level of corporate power? Are these concepts really that radical or threatening to the status quo that they need to be ignored? Evidently so.
Permalink
piglet Posted 10:02 am
18 Oct 2009
http://twitter.com/pdjmoo
THANKS DAVE. ISN'T IT REALLY ABOUT STOPPING OUR HUMAN BEHAVIORS THAT HAVE BROUGHT US TO THIS CRISIS AND GETTING OFF THE CEASELESS DEBATE THAT JUSTIFIES US CONTINUING OUR DESTRUCTIVE WAYS THAT HAVE DESTROYED THE VERY SYSTEM WE DEPEND UPON FOR OUR VERY SURVIVAL - NATURE. LET'S GET REAL...WE ARE THE CAUSE OF OUR OWN DEMISE. LET'S GET OUT OF OUR HEADS AND RE-EXAMINE OUR EGO-CENTRIC LIFESTYLES, ROLL UP OUR SLEEVES AND GET DOWN AMONGST NATURE TO HELP HER RESTORE HERSELF, STOP POISONING HER, STOP RAPING HER AND ALLOW HER TO REGENERATE-IF THERE IS ENOUGH TIME TO DO THIS. OUR OCEANS ARE SEVERELY DEPLETED, OUR SOILS, RIVERS AND FOOD SUPPLY POISONED WITH PESTICIDES AND INSECTIDES, OUR WATERS POLLUTED AND SICK; SPECIES DISAPPEARING AT ALARMING RATES; WE HAVE A GLOBAL WATER AND HUNGER CRISIS ON OUR HANDS LIKE NEVER BEFORE; AND WE STILL WANT TO CONTINUE WITH A LIFESTYLE AND ATTITUDE THAT BROUGHT US TO THIS BRINK. INSANE AND CRAZY.
SORRY GUYS, YOUR FIXATION ON QUICK, EASY TECHNOLOGY FIXES AND THROWING MONEY AT THIS LOOMING DISASTER IS NOT ENOUGH. IN FACT, MAY OF THEM WILL DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD (E.G. GMO FOODS AND NANOTECHNOLOGY). WHEN YOU REALIZE A HEALTHY TREE, FISH, BIRD OR BEE IS MORE IMPORTANT TO YOUR SURVIVAL THAN YOUR STATUS AND TOYS -THEN, AND ONLY THEN, CAN WE FEEL WHOLE AND COMPLETE AND READY TO RE-ENGAGE THAT WHICH WE DEPEND UPON EVERY MOMENT OF EVERY DAY FOR OUR SUSTENANCE AND WELL-BEING - NATURE.
Permalink
Chris Pratt Posted 12:59 pm
18 Oct 2009
Gus Speth, David and Grist is part of the debate, and that includes to what extent is capitalism, as we currently practice it, can continue without destroying the planet? It is not just about CO2. I have never known of a bio-engineered solution that has not created another problem, often times more serious than the one it is attempting to fix.
Permalink
piglet Posted 3:45 pm
18 Oct 2009
Permalink
Billhook Posted 5:08 pm
18 Oct 2009
Yet the outcome of that cocktail of GHG pollution is impacting most if not all of the "thermometer" issues, either directly (such as extreme weather events tipping rare species into extinction) or indirectly (such as unprecedented summer rains destroying northern fodder crops causing increased tropical forest clearance for crop production.
In this light, so dire is the present climate prognosis that each potential post-emission remedy surely demands evaluation on its own merits, rather than auto-dismissal as part of that so-unfashionable class of options entitled 'geo-engineering" ? Especially those options that could also help remedy other "thermometer" issues ?
For instance, a worldwide program for planting a giga-hectare of native species productive forestry on mostly non-farm land, would, of itself, significantly affect airborne carbon, and is thus plainly a benign form of geo-engineering. (Note: "mostly non-farm land" :- shelter-belts, wood-lots and coppices are a necessary part of most farming).
It seems worth noting that this program would also help to remedy several of the thermometer issues beside CO2-
Yet the real benefit would be gained by harvesting that new forestry as coppice (on a moderate cycle of 8 to 16 years, with regrowth protected from browsers) with produce used for conversion and burial as Biochar. This could substantially assist most of those ten issues - and most particularly the eleventh, being land denudation due to widespread drought & famine. And with regard to airborne carbon, the recovery of 9.0 GTC /yr has been projected as feasible by very reputable scientists in the field.
Shrill little critiques of this option abound, and focus mostly on the Monbiot fallacy that, since an excellent option might be done really badly, it should not even be discussed, let alone attempted. This seems absurd to me, not merely in our present climate /famine predicament, but with the specific threat of the probable desertification of the Amazon basin if warming is allowed to continue.
The real and less widely expressed fear may be that a major Biochar option could be hijacked as a 'ripoffset' to allow BAU to continue, which would seem to me an abuse of this one critical capacity for massive organic carbon recovery.
So what is needed IMHO is a global campaign to win formal UN agreement that the Forest Biochar option (as opposed to Farm-wastes Biochar) be adopted as an action priority and be reserved to counteract the fearsome compounding feedback loops, and not be used as offsets merely to help amortize vested interests' fossil investments. To this end, treasury funds from those nations with major historical carbon debts may well be required as investment capital at the program's outset.
Hoping that Grist will do far better than to swallow the Monbiot fallacy,
regards,
Billhook
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 6:45 pm
18 Oct 2009
Scientist: Cap and trade will hurt Earth
Warns more CO2 needed to sustain, expand plant growth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 09, 2009
12:00 am Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
Carbon dioxide emissions are good for Earth and don't cause global warming, a noted geologist and best-selling author is warning Congress
Leighton Steward, author of "Fire, Ice and Paradise," is storming Capitol Hill to convince senators that a cap-and-trade energy bill could harm the environment by reducing the Earth's CO2 levels, according to U.S. News & World Report.
"I'm trying to kill the whole thing," he said. "We are tilting at windmills."
Steward, member of a nonprofit group called Plants Need CO2, plans to meet with several lawmakers this week.
Proponents of the global warming debate claim the planet is warming due to greenhouse gases produced primarily from fossil fuels.
Steward was one of many scientists who accepted that idea.
But now he is bringing Congress "a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming," according to the report.
Not only does Steward argue that carbon dioxide does not cause warming, he says CO2 levels are already too low and that more, not less, is necessary to maintain plant growth.
Steward told U.S. News & World Report's Washington Whispers he believes a cap-and-trade plan to reduce emissions would mean considerable and unnecessary taxes for American taxpayers.
He also told the magazine that reduced CO2 levels would mean slowed food production. Plants grown at elevated CO2 levels produce larger fruit and take in less water, he said.
The scientist also declares CO2 is harmless to humans.
Steward noted that Earth's atmosphere has about 338 parts per million of CO2.
By contrast, he said, CO2 levels on Navy subs aren't considered dangerous until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:31 am
19 Oct 2009
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=112371#
Every bit as reliable as effnews, drug limboob, or drudge.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 8:55 am
19 Oct 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:42 am
20 Oct 2009
This is a matter of time/energy. Maybe someone somewhere has enough to spare to debunk every story that shows up on world-nut-daily, clusterfox, drudge, or vomits forth from the cake hole of drug limboob. But I don't.
In my weltanschuung the burden of proof is on the "provider" of the fuxnews trash to vet that kind of rhetorical filth before posting it.
I think most of us here, including the official Gristers, tend to stick to more reliable sources of information be they pro or anti-global climate change mitigation. No one has enough time to wade through the teabagger propaganda flooding the media, internet, tv, and print.
So before you join up and attend a teabagging event it would behoove you to check it all out, or you might end up getting a testicular facial. Hehehey.
Permalink
Grapejuice Posted 8:02 pm
18 Oct 2009
Leighton Steward is the director of EOG oil and gas company.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=H._Leighton_Steward
The 'Plants Need Co2' campaign is run by himself and several other fossil fuel company heads:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Plants_Need_CO2
I for one would love to a consensus of evidence supporting their claims, but we all know this does not exist. These people are simply using cheap tactics to prolong their profitable industries which can and will be replaced by more economically and ecologically viable ones.
Permalink
BrianF Posted 10:21 am
21 Oct 2009
Almost every time a global warming denier makes claim like this, when I look into it, the originator of the denier's claims either works for or gets funding from the fossil fuel industry (or from a right-wing group that is automatically against anything that is in any way pro-environment and pro-life). Also, I have almost always been able to show that their reasoning or methods were faulty. I rarely waste my time doing this any more, because I have done it so many times, and it can be very time-consuming.
It's easy to prove that Steward is full of it, though. For example, he says that "CO2 levels are already too low and that more, not less, is necessary to maintain plant growth." But CO2 levels have not been this high for 15 million years. Therefore, Steward must think the earth has not had any plants for more than 15 million years. How ridiculous! Also, to say CO2 doesn't harm humans directly is simply irrelevant. It's the heating of the earth and the resulting climate changes that are harmful to humans. This is so basic, that anyone truly interested in the truth could easily see through his arguments.
The sad thing is, no matter how many times you point the fallacies and biases out to the denier-followers, almost all of them simply ignore it. It's also sad that the best Republicans can do in Congress is to bring in so-called scientists like Steward, but the saddest thing is that this is enough to convince a very large number of people.
I don't know about foodprovider, but I think most people who make these comments are simply uninterested in knowing the truth. They have their beliefs, and no amount of evidence or logical thinking will sway them. I think it is similar to a religious or ideological belief to most of them, very similar to how many people don't "believe in" evolution. They will latch on to anything that matches the beliefs they already have, without even attempting to look into it, and they automatically reject anything that doesn't match their beliefs, without considering it. They don't understand that science works because it bases its conclusions on the evidence instead of cherry-picking evidence based on beliefs. They don't seem to care if their being on the wrong side of truth helps cause the next mass extinction or the deaths of most humans some time in the future.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 1:28 pm
21 Oct 2009
Permalink
askantik Posted 1:44 pm
21 Oct 2009
Nevertheless, science is arguably the world's most powerful tool for gaining real and practical knowledge about existence and the world around us. It can't answer all questions (obviously) and is sometimes wrong, but that doesn't mean you should ignore it altogether... There is a "study" disproving everything, but in most cases it is hardly 50/50. People say that there are studies that show the earth is cooling rather than warming. And that's true. But those studies make up about 1% of all the climatic studies and often times those 1% are funded by people with vested interests in subduing talk of global warming.
Permalink
askantik Posted 10:42 am
19 Oct 2009
I don't understand why so many people don't seem to get it. I always hear or read people saying, "Well, soon "they" will figure it out and we'll be okay." As if to say, some scientist somewhere will come up with some miracle technology that will continue to let us (as Branson said), "carry on flying our planes and driving our cars." It just ain't so... It starts at the foundation: lifestyle and philosophy/viewpoint change. Sure, technology will play a role (likely a prominent one), but the BIG HEADLINE THAT NO ONE SHOULD MISS is that we simply can't keep doing business as usual. Period.
Permalink
piglet Posted 11:57 am
19 Oct 2009
PLEASE READ:
http://thenaturaleye.com
ARTICLE: AN URGENT MEMO TO THE WORLD.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 2:22 pm
21 Oct 2009
Permalink
BrianF Posted 12:16 pm
22 Oct 2009
And I’m glad you don’t think science can just be ignored, because the fruits of science are all around us, including the computer you use to post your comments. I’m sure you would agree that God did not create computers on the eighth day. The bottom line is that in general science works, it produces tangible results that everyone can see and use, regardless of their beliefs, and it helps explain how things work.
But I wish more people had a better understanding of science so that they could be better equipped to judge it. There are different types of science, and some are less exact than others. The studies you hear about that get contradicted every few years are not that exact at all. They usually take a group of people, look at some characteristics, and try to make conclusions based on the patterns. It’s very easy to leave out important characteristics or use too-small groups or to unintentionally introduce biases, and that is why you see so many conflicting results from different studies. I take the results of all these studies with a grain of salt, and I trust the ones with the most people and that look at the most factors more.
The type of science that discovered the cause of polio and a vaccine to prevent it is very different. Someone came up with a theory or discovery, and then that person and other scientists tested it in different ways. Later there were studies to test the polio vaccine, and they showed that almost nobody who got the vaccine caught polio. This helped prove the theory the vaccine was based on was correct. But the theory did not come from a study, and neither did the cure. They came from logical thinking and research, and were validated by testing in many ways, not just by studies.
This type of discovery is rarely disproved later on. They might have gotten some details of the exact mechanism wrong, but the fundamental fact that a particular virus causes polio will probably stand forever. If someone later showed the scientists did get some of the details wrong, it would in no way invalidate the main discovery.
The discovery of the greenhouse effect is much like the discovery of the cause of polio. It was not based on studies. Someone came up with the greenhouse gas theory over 100 years ago, based on the observed properties of gases, and since then many scientists have tested the theory in many ways, and it has held up very well. Nobody has ever been able to disprove it. I don’t know of any reputable (capable and honest) scientist that thinks the greenhouse gas theory is wrong. The only real argument is exactly how much each gas warms the earth, and even that they agree on within a certain range. There are many things that influence temperature and climate, so you have to put the greenhouse effect in context. But that is exactly what the climate scientists have been doing, and they have been getting better and better at describing, measuring the past, and modeling the future. While they can’t say exactly how hot it will get by when, for example, there is virtually no doubt that CO2 and temperature have gone up and down together in the past or that positive feedbacks were involved. There is also virtually no doubt that CO2 is causing global average temperature to be higher than it would be if the CO2 levels were lower. Despite all the efforts of people like Leighton Steward to prove otherwise, nobody has been able to prove this is not the case or even to offer an alternative that explains what we are seeing and measuring anywhere near as well as the greenhouse gas theory.
It’s true that some industries will profit from the fact that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been proved to cause global warming. But I don’t know of any solar power or other companies that would profit who are funding climate scientists. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of global warming deniers being funded by or profiting from the fossil fuel industry. Leighton Steward is a great example. He is the director of an oil and gas company! He has a huge stake in the outcome of this debate. But James Hansen doesn’t own a solar power company or windmill farm.
If we don’t prevent the catastrophes that Hansen says will happen, he and his descendents will suffer just like everyone else. THAT is the stake Hansen has in this, and that is why he and I and others are doing what we can to prevent those awful things from happening.
I understand what Steward gets from confusing people about the science (more money), but I don’t understand what people who spread his bunk think they are getting from that. Do they ever wonder if they might possibly be wrong and that the vast majority of scientists whose job it is to study this might be right? Do they ever think about how their actions might affect the future of mankind and life on earth if they are wrong? Do they even care? I really wonder. I do care, and because I care, I did the hard work of reading over 25 books on the subject and countless articles, most of the 2007 IPCC reports, and other scientific reports. And yes, I did spend many hours reading and analyzing articles from global warming denier sites too. Have any of the people spreading global warming denier claims really investigated the science and analyzed the claims on both sides? I don’t think so, but I really wish they would.
Permalink
wolfger Posted 2:25 pm
19 Oct 2009
When considering supporting efforts to reduce CO2 production one should be aware that one can either support cleaner power sources or one could help reduce the future number of generators of CO2. Consider that of the 200 million annual births globally, that around 70 million are unwanted, which is close to the annual increase in global population. For every birth voluntarily prevented, the generation of around 1500 tons of CO2 are prevented in the developed world. In the less developed world around 20 tons of CO2 are prevented. Family planning education and ready availability of birth control have been shown to be the most effective ways to prevent unwanted births even in poor countries. The Optimum Population Trust estimates that
"The $7 cost of abating a tonne of CO2 using family planning compares with $24 for wind power, $51 for solar, $57-83 for coal plants with carbon capture and storage, $92 for plug-in hybrid vehicles and $131 for electric vehicles."
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/reducingemissions.pdf
Supporting Planned Parenthood or similar international organizations will achieve this. One could also consider supporting educational organization such as the Population Media Center which creates very effective radio soap programs to achieve broadcast education of family planning in less developed countries.
http://www.populationmedia.org/
Let's work the human dimension!
Permalink
John Faust Posted 7:22 pm
19 Oct 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/142967/a_millionaire_with_a_super_yacht_is_a_larger_strain_on_resources_than_hundreds_of_peasant_families?page=entire.
It's salient point is that sheer numbers don't tell the whole story. In the article, he has recast Erlich-Holdren's classic equation I=PxAxT as I=CxAxT where consumer's have replaced total population as a key factor. So your suggestion that 1 billion might be okay is iffy. If they all consumed at the rate we do in the US, things could be even worse.
Of course, if the population were 1 billion, unsustainable levels of consumption can only be maintained through a system of economic colonialism which propagates the abuse globally. It also condemns a large part of the global population to economic misery as they deliver their resources to the empire rather than attend to their basic needs. So, in that sense, 1 billion would have significantly less impact than our current population levels -- for a while. However, because of more systemic mandates towards ever greater consumption (and consumers), that population level wouldn't last.
So, focusing just on population is not much better than focusing just on CO2 levels. As David Roberts indicates: The problems are deeply systemic and interrelated.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 8:00 pm
19 Oct 2009
Permalink
BrianF Posted 10:49 am
20 Oct 2009
Positive feedbacks have already started, and at some point they will take over, and once that starts we won't be able to stop the process. The last time CO2 levels were this high, global temperatures were 10 to 15 degrees F higher, so even if we did not let the levels rise further, feedback would eventually take over. Nobody knows exactly when, but it could be very soon, and when the stakes are this high we should err on the safe side.
We have to get greenhouse gas levels down very quickly. (My hunch is that we have to get them down to around 300ppm, not the 350ppm that is popular now, just based on the fact that 387ppm means 10 to 15 degrees F hotter.) We have to use all of the good solutions people have come up with, and use them together. Anyone who thinks any one solution will work definitely does not understand the situation. We need to reduce emissions to near zero very quickly, while implementing ways to take massive amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere. To reduce emissions that quickly, we need to increase efficiency as much as possible while quickly moving to carbon neutral forms of energy. Reducing the population in a way that does not cause too many other problems will also probably be necessary in the short term, and in the long term I would guess the current population is not sustainable.
If we don't take this problem at least as seriously as a world war, I don't see how we will be successful. In that case, the population will go down anyway, but the process will be accompanied by suffering on a scale we've never seen before, and the survivors will be left with a very different world. So how can we get people and governments to treat the situation with the seriousness and urgency it deserves?
Permalink