A new essay 15

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   Bart Anderson Posted 10:13 am
   22 Oct 2006

   Thanks DavidThanks for posting this excellent article. Bill McKibben - he's my man!
   I'd be interested to hear his (or Grist's) take on George Monbiot's new book, Heat, which demonstrates how an industrial economy like the UK could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 90% in by 2030. (About the book)
   -BA

   Permalink

2. 

   caniscandida Posted 3:27 pm
   22 Oct 2006

   the great waveIn Hesiod's Theogony, Gaia does indeed eventually get things into balance, but only after great bloodshed and warfare between generations.  Hers originally is the ambiguous oracle at Delphi, which Apollo comes to manage in time.
   The prediction of "the great wave" really unnerves me.  Not only because of the dimension of the destructiveness that we are looking in the face, but also because those with foresight are cursed with the curse of Cassandra: they see the disaster that is coming, but no one believes them.
   In a rather different way, this is a pretty terrifying sentence:
   
   <<
   
   WorldChanging can tell you whom to text-message from your phone in order to advocate for international debt relief, and how to build an iPod speaker from an old tin of Altoids mints.
   
   >>
   Why don't I just say good-bye to Little Dog, and dig a hole behind a tree, and crawl into it, and die.
   
   Chickens are our cousins!
   
   So are other sensitive animals!
   
   Enough is enough!
   
   No more factory farms!

   Permalink

3. 

   dobermanmacleod Posted 5:31 pm
   22 Oct 2006

   Why rapid climate change is probableFirst, GCMs (global climate models) are bias toward predicting gradual linear change.  On the other hand, ice cores prove that climate change is abrupt.  Simplistically, when forced the climate at first resists change, then rapidly skips to another stable state.
   Second, when creating GCMs, scientist edit their predictions.  If a GCM predicts unconventional or unexpected results, it is changed to reflect consensual predictions.  In other words, a GCM predicting abrupt climate change would never get out of the lab without being altered.
   Third, it is remarkably difficult to integrate different components.  Glaciers melting, deforestation, desertification, permafrost melting, marine life dying:  all have to be integrated in such a way that they interaction.  Separately, they might behave in a linear fashion, but when they interact their behavior should be enhanced ("the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts").
   Finally, it is near impossible to accurately model feedback loops, which amplify change.  When a microphone is held close to a speaker, it starts to feed the speaker output into the microphone which feeds it out the speaker, setting in motion a feedback loop, which rapidly escalates.
   For instance, the melting of Arctic snow uncovers earth, which soaks up the heat of the sun better.  As the permafrost melts, it emits carbon dioxide and methane which blankets the land in a heat reflecting blanket.  The more it melts, the worse the global warming, the more it melts.  Until recently, melting permafrost has been ignored by GCMs because it was hard to model mathematically.
   Judging by past GCM predictions, evaluated by observed melting, GCMs are way to conservative in their predictions.  As warming accelerates, the gap between GCM predictions, and actual warming will widen.  Finally, when forced past a tipping point, our climate will abruptly change from the stable state of the past 10,000 years (the Holocene, which has made high technology societies possible) to a more hot dry climate that has resulted in mass extinctions many times in the past-just like Dr Lovelock predicts.

   Permalink

4. 

   dobermanmacleod Posted 6:27 pm
   22 Oct 2006

   The only solution to global warmingMankind only emits 3% that of nature.  Today, nature soaks up all of it's emissions, plus 50% of ours.  In other words, of mankind's 8 billion tons of CO2 emitted each year, 4 billion stay in the air.
   It is estimated that by 2030, nature will only be able to soak up 2.7 billion tons of mankind's CO2.  Furthermore, with business-as-usual mankind is expected to double their CO2 emissions to 16 billion tons.
   With a growing population, and growing per capita CO2 emissions, it is unreasonable to expect mankind to dramatically lower their CO2 emissions rapidly.  Furthermore, the warming earth can be expected emit more greenhouse gases, and soak up less (i.e. carbon sinks will become carbon emitters).
   Therefore, the only solution is to improve nature's ability to soak up CO2.  I suggest seeding a genetically modified organism into the ocean.  We need that CO2 removed from the air ASAP.  Adaptation to runaway global warming is absurd.  Mitigation of runaway global warming is a false hope.  The only solution is to remove the CO2 from the air after it has been emitted.

   Permalink

5. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 2:45 am
   23 Oct 2006

   An article in New Sciencepoints to evidence that several of the great extinciton events may have been caused by global warming. The amount of CO2 in the air at the time of these extinctions will be matched by us in the next century if we don't do something.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

   Permalink

6. 

   sunflower Posted 4:34 am
   23 Oct 2006

   Clean carbon-neutral efficiency.As an environmentalist, I would love to see people move back to the cities, reverse population growth, buy Earth-friendly products, and vote for smart people.
   As an apolitical environmentalist, I believe our political system is structured on corruption and will not protect people nor the environment.
   As a global warming activist I could advocate Earth-friendly action as an environmental opportunity, albeit dishonest, bordering on environmental corruption.  I will not use global warming mitigation to further environmental interests, political interests, economic interests.   (Resisting personal corruption is not easy.)
   As a researcher of energy I know the lies. The energy around us is loaded with carbon-neutral energy - energy that costs less than fossil fuels.  
   Humanity can flourish here, China, India, everywhere, with the economics of new energy.  Never ever believe we need to use fossil carbon or not use energy.  That is a false premise.  Our automobiles, factories, homes, schools, and civilizations do not need fossil fuels for energy.
   Staying the course is a failure of imagination.
   
   

   Permalink

7. 

   schreinervideo Posted 6:31 am
   23 Oct 2006

   Tibet and SolarI was in Tibet this spring and was impressed by the widespread use of solar power and parabolic reflectors to do everything from heat water to cook meals. It's true many Tibetans are way behind the rest of the world in some things. But cellular technology and alternative energy are not among them. Necessity forces the implementation of new and often untested products. When the rest of us are living in tents, maybe we'll get a little more imaginative too. BTW: I met and interviewed Bill McKibben for a documentary a couple of years ago. He IS the man!
   
   Internet video will save the world!

   Permalink

8. 

   SMLowry Posted 10:58 am
   23 Oct 2006

   Please . . .no genetically modified organisms for the ocean! The ocean already absorbs way too much CO2 for its own good. I can't find it right now, but a relatively recent issue of Orion had an excellent, and frightening, article about the oceans. The excessive amounts of CO2 in the ocean is causing it to become acidic, so acidic in fact that in  . . . I can't remember the exact number of years but before mid-century, it will be so acidic that it will dissolve the shells of mollusks. When I read this my blood ran cold.
   
   

   Permalink

9. 

   Jason D Scorse Posted 12:07 pm
   23 Oct 2006

   No offense to Bill...but titles like this are why environmentalism is in the bad shape it is. I will read the argument as it's important, but discussing impending catastrophe just doesn't get people motivated in my view- even if it's true.
   J.S.
   
   J.S. teaches economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

   Permalink

10. 

    Jason D Scorse Posted 12:44 pm
    23 Oct 2006

    Now that I've read it...2 quick points:
    
    
    I absolutely agree that the private sector alone is not sufficient to address global warming if the worst-case scenarios are true- the climate is a global public good that will be unprotected in the free market no matter how enlightened the private sector
    I am curious how high a carbon tax would need to be to decrease CO2 emissions by the levels required to prevent possible worse-case scenarios- something tells me that it would need to be extremely high given the inelasticity of demand for energy- politically that is so tough that I don't believe it's possible but I might be wrong
    
    
    J.S.
    
    J.S. teaches economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

    Permalink

11. 

    ffletcher Posted 2:56 pm
    23 Oct 2006

    Tax, Ration, or save the poorJust over 90% of the coal is used to make electricity and just over 50% of the electricity is from coal.  A ton of coal generates 2000kWh using Powder River Basin Coal, 3000kWh using other coal.  The alternative fuel would be natural gas or oil.  A gallon of oil is good for 10kWh.  A dth of natural gas is good for 100kWh.
    Assuming that we implement a tax right away before any alternative generating capacity can be built and utilities can pass the carbon tax to its customers.
    A carbon tax of $100 a ton would add 4 cents to a KWh, or $40 to the typical residential bill and generate on the order of 100 billion in tax revenue.
    At $100 a ton coal is still cheaper than burning natural gas at $8/dth or oil at 2.00 a gallon.  Just to get the utility to fuel switch would require a carbon tax north of $200 a ton and drives rates up by over a 100% in those states that use a lot of coal.  Generally that part of the US east of the Rockies and south of New England.
    Would it be better to let price set the point where coal is shut down or would it be better to ration the output from coal to certain classes of useres?  Or just give the poor people access to electricity at the old rate?

    Permalink

12. 

    JMG Posted 12:49 am
    24 Oct 2006

    Worse than that, ffMost analyses suggest that, on average, 1 kWh electricity requires burning 2 lbs coal, so your figures are overly generous to coal.  That is, one ton of coal only generates on the order of 1,000 kWh (1 MWh).
    Also, methane has half the CO2 output of coal, so a carbon tax that is actually a carbon tax (i.e., not just a tax on coal) will be raising the price of the main alternative fossil fuel (for electricity, anyway) as well.
    Moreover, there is peril in driving utilities off coal and onto natural gas (or, worse, back onto oil).  Natural gas has already peaked and gone into a sharp decline in North America; thank goodness for the warmer winter last year (and hope for another this year -- or else we will see people really being bankrupted by their heating bills).  How many LNG terminals do you want operating--and is it really a good deal to replace dependence on Saudi oil with dependence on Saudi oil + LNG from Qatar?
    What has to happen is that the carbon tax has to be set high enough to generate the huge river of money that will be needed to subsidize the poor so that they can survive while we rebuild our infrastructure for conservation and efficiency (i.e., the exact opposite of what we have cared about for the last 100 yrs).  

    Permalink

13. 

    apsmith Posted 2:16 am
    24 Oct 2006

    Ration, not taxIf you want to tax carbon to raise revenue, fine. But a far more reliable way to restrict carbon emissions is a rationing (and trading) system - I believe this has been proposed for England, where every person gets a common allocation that they can use or sell. In such a way, the total CO2 emission numbers have to go down - there's no guarantee of that with a tax.

    Permalink

14. 

    JMG Posted 5:14 am
    24 Oct 2006

    Not exclusive propositionsA carbon tax and a rationing/trading scheme are not mutually exclusive--especially given that modern computers give us the power to apply progressive tax rates based on consumption, so that if Joe Richguy buys up a bunch of the consumption allowances from poor folks, he is also hit with a stiffer tax than would John and Jane Poorfolks had they used their own personal allowances.

    Permalink

15. 

    schreinervideo Posted 12:53 pm
    24 Oct 2006

    Catastrophe PRI differ with J.S. on how catastrophic predictions turn people off to "environmentalism." Global Warming and its catostrophic implications, have changed America's attitudes similar to Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" about DDT which shocked the hell out of people and got results in about ten years. When it finally sank in it produced the green movement and the EPA. Last year, McKibben and I discussed "The Death of Environmentalism" paper that came out a few years ago and I heard those guys speak in Boston. It was PR and pure speculation. Right-wing Christians know how powerful apocalyptic predictions are. Check out "Left Behind." Wish it weren't true...
    
    Internet video will save the world!

    Permalink