Thread: Political control or a real danger.

Originally Posted by xman

How about this then: Erring on the side of caution, if we reduce the greenhouse gasses which are suspected to cause climate change, we should see a decline in the rate of radical change. Experimentation seems to be the only solution to our impasse and I suggest we take it up.

X

Ok, I can support that. So, what do you recommend we do?

I've read that Water, then Carbon Dioxide, then Nitrous Oxide are the major heat holding elements of the greenhouse gases. There's little man-attributable water, so that leaves CO2 and NO. I read somewhere that 50% of the man-made CO2 is absorbed by the oceans (and that's bad for the oceans, too)... so if we reduce CO2 the reduction will benefit both problems. So far so good, right?

CO2 sources... 1/3 of the man-attributable CO2 is from power plants, 1/3 from factories, 12% from major transportation (planes, ships, etc.) and 22% from cars, trucks, buses, etc.

So what should we do that can be accomplished in the near term?

I'm certainly in favor of solar, wind powered, and geothermal generation, but practically speaking we aren't going to power the world that way, at least not in the near term. That leaves Nuclear Power generation... another can of worms to open, eh? That probably won't happen in the near term either.

We could remove CO2 from the smokestack emissions (that would work for both power plants and factories... a plus) but I don't think we know how to do that economically yet... but it's something to consider... and might be the best shot we have right now.

We can also "store" more carbon (from CO2) in trees... we could forbid cutting anymore trees and require that forests cut down in the past couple centuries be replanted. But we know that isn't going to happen either since people would have to be displaced from their homes to revert their land to forests. Not to mention starvation would possibly ensue as land for cultivation/food would need to be reallocated to forests as well.

If the oceans could be made to grow more plants (kelp and algae) the oceans could "store " carbon just like trees... but I don't think we know how to do that economically, either.

So what should we do?

It's at this point I always come to the conclusion the only solution is to reduce the world population so demand for consumption subsides.... less food, less power, less transportation, factory output, etc. China had a good idea... restrict the birthrate to something less than the replacement rate. But that wasn't very well accepted, was it. Almost every major religion would condemn it. I just don't see it happening.

I guess what we need is a good old fashioned world pandemic !!! Wipe out a significant percentage of the world population and we're home free. If those that survive can overcome the economic chaos that would result, the world population might be low enough to sustains itself for another couple hundred years again. On the other hand, if we don't solve the problem somehow the result might be the same... economic chaos, deaths, etc. Either way, mankind may end up being the big loser here.

Just kidding (about the pandemic). But I honestly don't know what to do that wouldn't create a world economic collapse. There's so little cooperation between nations these days that I honestly don't have much hope anything significant can/will happen in the near future. That's not to say we shouldn't try. But again, what?

I know you aren't serious about the pandemic, but watch out- it looks like the flu in upcoming years might reach pandemic levels. That reminds me- I need to go get my shot

That's the thing - doesn't seem like there is one thing that should be done and solve all problems. I personally don't have any issues with nuclear power plants and I think many of the 'environmentalists' (the ones that were opposing such things in the past) are warming up to this as one of the lest damaging solutions.

As far as CO2 goes, it seems that the issue is where does it get sourced from. If we magically stop using fossil fuels AND keep the forests/plants at their current levels, then we'll have a dynamic equilibrium - whatever CO2 is released in the energy conversion of organic matter would be going back to organic matter that is replenishing the one being used. (The net energy of course again coming from the sun be it from the photosynthesis which creates the fuel or if we get better technology sourcing it more efficiently via better solar cells.)
The increased of CO2 from the industrialization is just that carbon accumulated in fossils over tens and hundreds(?) of thousands of years was rapidly (over a hundred of years) released in the atmosphere. How sensitive the atmosphere is to this increase, we don't really know - estimates are from negligible effect to catastrophic effect.

Since we don't have detailed enough measurements from the past (to compare) we cannot really tell empirically with enough certainty whether the human induced impact on the top of whatever occurs naturally is significant. The issue I have with graphs such as the one in wikipedia's page of global warming is the errorbars - the ones in the past are quite large.
So the only other reasonable way to find what's going on and most importantly predict what will happen in the future is modeling. Our computers have gotten powerful enough to be able to fairly accurately predict the weather over the next couple of days. As far as longer time scales go - it's really hard. Only over the last decade it has become possible to include some chemistry in modeling the atmospheric phenomena and chemical reactions are at the very core of global warming.

What this means is that we will certainly be learning more and more and hopefully we will be able to act before it is too late if it can make any difference. One thing that we know for sure that if we need to do something it will involve international cooperation, so it would make sense to have decent international policies (sorry to anybody who believes in isolationism).

Businesses are certainly not stupid - they will eventually design better engines and better technologies. Having finite resources would force them to do that when the price point of fossil fuel becomes high enough to justify the large investments in developing said new technologies. This, of course, assumes completely free market. I do not think this is a reality - the governments influence the market significantly via various taxes/tax breaks, import taxes, subsidies, etc...

What I am saying is that what we can do and how we can do it is fairly complicated matter and it always involves somebody making (a lot of) money in the process. The governments play significant role in any case, whether we like it or not.

Just more of my random thoughts on the subject. I don't really have any feasible solution in mind (except of nukes, of course, which incidentally can be used as both source of emission-free energy and quick solution to the overpopulation problem - I know really bad joke) and I do plan to read that scientific paper in its entirety, as well as some sort of semi-detailed version of the report of the international committee that won the Nobel Prize.

I agree that it seems impossible to 'cure' the problem, but there is plenty that we can do that will help. The technology is there. Green roofs are easy and reduce the need for heating and air conditioning. There are also many smart house construction models which nearly eliminate the need for air conditioning and even heating. These things will be common construction practices eventually, probably by the time our kids are getting grey, hopefully sooner.

With the forests .. eliminate the clear cutting and the forest remains in place. If the logging companies want to clear cut they can replant the already devastated areas and harvest that in 20 years. Try getting the loggers on side with that one though.

Hybrid engines are a good first step, but electric cars are something we should never have stopped doing. Most people don't know that electric motors predate gasoline engines for cars. We have an uphill climb against the oil industry there too.

Other changes would help too. Reduce meat production and consumption. This is something the doctors are telling us we should do as well. It takes something like 10 times the energy to produce a steak as it does to produce the equivalent vegetable protein. I'm a vegetarian. I know not everybody will make that choice, but it's healthier for you and your world to cut down.

Here's a big one. Eat locally grown foods and eat from small producers, farmers' markets. Much of the automotive carbon we produce is from trucking or shipping oranges and such across the country. This is a mindset. Eat for your season, more salads in the spring and summer, stews, dried goods, preserves and pickles in the winter.

Ride a bike or take public transit, or at the very least carpool with at least two other people. People who are committed to solving these problems in a real way are coming up with great ideas all the time. All we have to do is put our minds to it and we can accomplish fantastic things.

I dare you to Take The Nature Challenge. I bet you'll be surprised at what YOU can accomplish in the short term.
It can be done. WE can do it. We're late, but not too late to make a difference.

X

Originally Posted by xman

How about this then: Erring on the side of caution, if we reduce the greenhouse gasses which are suspected to cause climate change, we should see a decline in the rate of radical change. Experimentation seems to be the only solution to our impasse and I suggest we take it up.

X

Actually thats not necessarily true. Even if we reduced the production of said gasses it could take decades to see the effect. In addition the way the worlds total ecosystem works once things are set in motion its like trying to arrest a runaway freight train. It might already be too late. You know about the straw that broke the camels back?

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Actually thats not necessarily true. Even if we reduced the production of said gasses it could take decades to see the effect. In addition the way the worlds total ecosystem works once things are set in motion its like trying to arrest a runaway freight train. It might already be too late. You know about the straw that broke the camels back?

Pessimism!

Originally Posted by xman

With the forests .. eliminate the clear cutting and the forest remains in place. If the logging companies want to clear cut they can replant the already devastated areas and harvest that in 20 years. Try getting the loggers on side with that one though.



X

You just knew I had to weigh in on this one .

First off, regardless of your beliefs about climate change, I see this as a perfect example of Aquinas' gamblers proof of the existance of God. In a nutshell, it's a question of costs and benifits...either God exists or (s)he does not. I can either believe or not believe. If I don't believe and God does not exist, no harm no foul. If on the other hand, I don't believe but God does exist, I spend eternity in torment (not a pleasant prospect). If I do believe, but God does not exist, again, no downside. Finally, if I do believe and God does exist, eternal joy. Thus, there is only the potential for harm if I don't believe and only the potential for good if I do. So by simply playing the odds, the logical choice is to believe.

Same deal with climate change...whether you believe the (IMNSHO) substantial data that points to a real problem or not, there is little downside in pursuing a reduction or elimination of the human caused portion of the effect (i.e. climbing concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere). If however, the problem is real, not doing anything has a potentially catestrophic effect.

Now, back to forests, clearcutting, and in general, the use of wood. First, let me step up on my soapbox, get my personal biases out in the open, and give an opinion based on way too many years of science based education...clearcutting is one of several tools used by foresters to regenerate forest stands. As a tool, it is neither good nor bad (any more than a hammer or a screwdriver is good or bad). It can however, be used in an appropriate or an inappropriate manner. If used incorrectly, it can cause environmental damage. On the other hand, much of what is labled clearcutting is not a forest practice at all, but land clearing or land conversion (think walmart parking lot, or suburban housing development). As I said, clearcutting is a regeneration method, if it is not used to reestablish a forest, the harvest practice is best described as timber mining.

As far as the use of wood is concerned, it is one of the few carbon neutral sources of energy available. Anytime coal, oil, or natural gas is burned to heat, produce electricity, or power a car, stored carbon is released into the atmosphere. Burn wood, that CO2 is taken back up by regenerating or actively growing forests. Wood is carbon neutral. If you really want to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, use more wood and ensure it is stored in a way that it will not decompose such as a wood framed house. The carbon budget of a wood house is an order of magnitude less than one constructed out of concrete or steel.

An additional falacy is that we are cutting down all of our forests, there is more standing timber in North America today than at any time since at least 1920 (I don't have data beyond that). One of our biggest problems is not that we're cutting too much, it's that public opinion is not allowing the use of the resources we have. Although we are cutting only a fraction of forest growth (in the US and Canada), we are net importers of wood. This is one of the places where the 'Think globaly act locally' slogan of some environmental organizations falls short. Because of local political pressure not to use our own resources (while at the same time not reducing our use of wood or paper), we end up exporting our environmental problems to other countries that typically do not have as strict environmental regulations. In my opinion, this is unconscionable.

Climate change real? Absolutely...all natural systems are in a continual state of flux. Man caused? The answer really does not matter. Political? You betcha! Can we do something about the problem (real or perceived)? I think we have an obligation to do so; call it enlightened self interest.

If I were looking to bump my post count, I should have divided this into a couple dozen shorter rants.

Just another data point,
Ed

Thanks Ed. Very cogent.

Thanks Ed, I was looking forward to your response.

The only problem I see with the transferability of Aquinas's logic is that believing in God has a (relatively small cost) that I have to pay personally, while it seems that the current thinking about affecting climate change involves everybody thus 'I'd rather wait until there is a critical mass before considering joining in' in addition to 'why should my taxes go to developing more green technology'. It's got to be a collective effort not only on a national but on global scale and most (if not all) human efforts on that scale have failed.

At some point fossil energy which is the non-carbon neutral source will become too expensive or may be even extinct.