Climate Change Poses Grave Threats, Offers Enormous Opportunities
My old friend Steve Vachss makes the following remarks (below) on climate change, and, in particular, the recent publication from ThinkProgress: “2017 is so unexpectedly warm it is freaking out climate scientists.”
Given that his conclusion (that renewable energy is a good idea) agrees with mine, you might think that I’d just let the whole thing slide with a “right on!” or an “atta boy!” and let well enough alone. Sorry; no can do. 🙂 I couldn’t resist presenting a few points he should consider.
He writes:
Craig: Few people deny that the climate is warming, though some doubt the importance of the two-degree increase pictured here. Those of us who have given it more attention believe that two-degrees as part of an ongoing trend would be very significant. The only debatable points for us are 1) Is the rising temperature trend man-made? and 2) Can we take steps that will mitigate the problem? I’m not sure that anyone can answer those questions conclusively. However, converting from fossil fuels makes sense, regardless of what we believe. Renewable energy means cleaner air. It also means that we don’t risk exhausting our energy supply. It also takes fossil fuels out of the geopolitical fights that have caused suffering and death to millions. We need to ask the question differently: Should we work toward a future in which we end fossil fuel dependence and convert to renewable energy? The answer would be a resounding “yes.”
Thanks, Steve. Here I respond to your assertions:
As you point out, the 2 degrees C figure is the generally agreed-upon max that the average increase in the Earth’s temperature can sustain without causing major and probably irreversible damage, and you are correct that this figure (2.0) isn’t written in stone, i.e., there is no reason that it couldn’t have been 1.9 or 2.1.
For decades, climate scientists have made exhaustive attempts, without any success whatsoever, to pin the cause of global warming on anything other than human activity; linked here is a video containing a great discussion on this point. The list of now-eliminated suspects includes things like the fluctuations in solar irradiation, the procession of the Earth’s axis, the changes in the shapes of the ellipse that describes the Earth’s orbit (collectively called Milankovitch cycles), volcanic activity, and dozens of others. And here’s a wonderful article on the subject that comes to us from the University of Indiana.
Unfortunately, we bear no risk of exhausting our energy supply. We have enough coal (by far the most toxic of the fossil fuels) to last well past the end of our civilization if we choose to continue to burn it. In the U.S., we have what we call “Coal Country,” meaning states like Ohio and West Virginia, known for a century for the productivity of their coal mines, i.e., places where we now need to go a bit farther and deeper to get coal out of the ground. But we also have states like Wyoming, where, when we walk around, we need to be careful not to trip over lumps of coal, as they lie on the ground’s surface. Yet coal is so cheap from the existing mines, especially with modern technologies like mountaintop removal, that no one’s even thought about collecting coal from Wyoming. Bottom line there: we have an inexhaustible supply of the fuels that are actively rendering our planet uninhabitable.
The “business as usual” scenario would result in a rise in temperature at about 5 degrees C by the end of the 21st Century, which would cause a level of suffering on this planet so severe that it would be hard to quantify; it would mean huge loss in habitable land mass (due to desertification and sea-level rise), the demise of many of the world’s great cities, hundreds of millions of climate refugees, huge extinction of animal species (including the loss of all animal ocean life except jellyfish), uncontrolled infectious disease due to skyrocketing population in insects, shortages of food and potable water, etc. It also means the end of permanent shorelines, as sea-level rise will continue for centuries to come. The list goes on for pages.
There isn’t much doubt that we can take steps that will ameliorate the situation, though I suppose it’s a function of what we mean by “can.” We most certainly have the technology at our fingertips to reduce the footprint associated with our energy generation and consumption to the levels where they were many decades ago, which would, in fact, keep the warming under 2 degrees C. IMO, however, the most important definition of “can” in this context is associated with the practicalities (commonly known as “political will”) of getting there. Whether we get there in time to avert catastrophe is anybody’s guess, as it will require our making a concerted effort as a species to do so, and historically, “concerted efforts” have not particularly been our strong suit. In fact, we’ve had identically zero in the +/- 200K-year evolution of humankind.
We also need to understand that our farming of beef has an ecological component that is actually, according to most studies, larger than the much ballyhooed impact of energy and transportation; in addition to climate change, it includes land degradation, air pollution, water shortage, water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. More on this extremely important subject can be found in the report: Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, released by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations that “aims to assess the full impact of the livestock sector on environmental problems, along with potential technical and policy approaches to mitigation.”
You’re 100% correct that converting from fossil fuels makes sense, and that renewable energy means cleaner air; it provides a great many other benefits as well including a wellspring of jobs, improved national security, and a greatly improved standing of the U.S. on the world stage. As our country will realize some day, one hopes before it’s too late, that last one is an important feature.
But how valuable is all this stuff? Well, let’s take just one obvious benefit: the cessation of war over oil. If we’re wondering how to put a price tag on that, we can start with the hard costs of the 2003 Iraq invasion itself (somewhere between $4-$6 trillion). From that point, if we dare, we can ask some of the 4491 U.S. families that have lost loved ones in Iraq since 2003 what they think an end to such wars would be worth. We’ll probably be inclined to stop after the first such interview, however, when we encounter the blank stare of a parent who couldn’t believe we asked such an asinine and insensitive question.
Craig,
I’ve noticed over the last period you seem to have moved from encouraging environmental progress by helping popularizing the adoption of clean(er) technology, to fighting a crusade against those whom you perceive as enemies of your increasingly narrow political ideology.
You have moved from encouraging evolution, to preaching revolution, but a revolution with no real practical road map, based on false, distorted, sensationalized information.
You no longer pursue honest inquiry,or encourage diverse opinion, Instead you ferociously defend against any “heresy” or deviance in adherence to an increasingly narrow ideology.
It’s become hard to define what you are actually “for” in terms of what can realistically be achieved, it gets lost among the plethora of things you are “against”.
That’s the trouble with becoming absorbed in wild doomsday prophesies that never occur, you lock yourself away from all the positive products of human ingenuity that ensure such scenarios never occur.
You also start to ignore any new information that contradict your alarmist doomsday prophesies.
There are two methods of promoting the adoption of better environmental practices, one is productive, the other I would suggest, is counter productive.
1) Encourage practical, economically feasible, readily accepted and supported new technologies to produce clean(er) more efficient uses of energy and resources, while continuing to encourage research and development of technologies and policies with as much political and social inclusion as possible.
2) Advocate extremist dogma while demanding radical, untested, unfeasible dramatic “solutions” (many of which become worse than the original problem). Shout down all voices of dissent, advocate the adoption of unpopular policies based on narrow political/ideological dogma.
Now which policy do you think will ultimately prove effective ?
I believe the best examples are provided from our own lives, we are quite rightly judged by what we do, rather than what we say.
When in 2006 the report entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options”, submitted to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, I read the report with interest and was encouraged by the report to continue with promoting better technology and farm practices in the beef industry.
The UN report highlighted many of the environmental issues created by livestock farming, and also recognized the value of livestock to the world economy and the world’s one billion poor. especially nutrition.
Nowhere did the UN recommend abolition of the beef industry ! In fairness to the authors, they could not have foreseen the amazing advancing in technology rendering many of the concerns mentioned in the report obsolete in a mere decade.
Which why I find your using such material as a “set in stone” dogma, inexplicable from a person who claims to be guided by scientific principles.
But it does go to illustrate the difference between our outlooks.
I read the report a useful study highlighting the need for increased technology, education, and investment in better land management and practices in the beef industry.
You use the report as an argument for advocating the abolition of one of the world’s largest industries, recklessly driving billions into hunger and poverty, while not improving the environment.
I tell you the major impact of cattle and all ruminants emitting climate change gas can be not only reduced, but reduced by modern technology below the level of the 17th century, you choose to ignore the information preferring to disseminate obsolete information.
While you rail against the environmental harm caused by faulty or poorly maintained pipelines, others set to work inventing and developing low impact, much safer, more environmentally friendly pipelines.
Once you would have been excited and praised such technology, today you have become so immersed in the politics and ideology of your crusade, you regard such improvements as the enemy!
Very little environmental progress can be achieved without widespread public support. The danger with “Crusaders” is they can’t wait and resort to coercion. The result is never lasting good.
Converted efforts by humanity have achieved at least 1, not “0”, goals. That of reversing ozone hole depletion. That required complete changeover of multiple industries, politics and opinions.
Of course this time, more people are divided, because too many young people read too much crap on the internet, so we’ll probably not prevent the overheated biosphere into economic ruin unless we understand how to prevent ourselves from pushing away folks via our determined and “my way or the highway” attitudes (I’m a LOT like that, too because “I have to be” to get the point across). But, I, and many others, are wrong in that approach. It’s not like anyone who forces their opinions on me will EVER convince me!
It doesn’t seem like you’re being too negative in your efforts, as Marko seems so enthused to write so much about, just don’t promote the concept of less, when we have the tech to create MORE… clean energy than what even coal has to offer!
However, I agree that we should promote less meat consumption, though, and better agricultural procedures. And if there’s any more room for efficiency, why not, however, all the efficiency in the world won’t make up for expected growth out of poverty, for more people and for us all to become a space faring civilization, etc.
Therefore, the solutions are not really in looking for ways to use less, as too many people don’t have enough already. They are in looking for better ways to integrate solar, like planetary powerlines (they all hate that) and cheaper, better batteries. Yet, that is not enough, if that requires too much land coverage.
Especially because the other solution requires greening entire deserts which requires lots more energy to desalinate water and for proper soils management. Other forms of excess CO2 sequestration are either not environmentally acceptable or require lots of energy and land coverage, such as crushed olivine (Schuiling). Greening the deserts also provide economic inventive whereas the olivine approach and the dirty “just pump it back into the ground” approach, does not. We could create a whole new continent of economic growth based upon those green deserts!
Now, all these wonderful, money making solutions require more than covering a percent or two of the land surface with solar panels (when you add up the growth scenarios necessary for a positive future for ten billion).
Thus, we will most probably have to also employ the safest type of nuclear fission possible, and at a very large scale. Look int Terrestrial Energy, Moltex, and others that are raising money for various different kinds of molten salt reactors.
The tech is here, they’re inherently safe (can’t blow up) and eventually, will convert existing spent waste into heat and electricity. Now THAT’S a vision for the future (remember, we all want to include the energy hungry outer space colonization and exploration into that future)!
Thanks.
Robert,
Well said Robert! You are quite correct when you point to the signing of the Montreal Protocol as evidence of global cooperation in reducing ozone harmful CFC’s.
The Protocol worked because the industrialized world cooperated in a moderate, practical, and bi-partisan manner. The problem wasn’t complicated by ideology or political opportunism.
Only the most radical and extreme advocates called for disruptive measures. There was no campaign to abolish the refrigeration Industry altogether!
The majority of nations and scientists simply encouraged switching to less harmful HFC, while climate neutral hydrocarbons were being developed.
To it’s credit, the USA and US corporations were volunteer pioneers in the campaign to develop CFC alternatives.
The Protocol also worked because the primary consumers and manufacturers of CFC’s were developed Western nations. The transition was relatively simple and coordinated, and not marred by the bitter political “blame game” and opportunism witnessed today.
So yes, I thank you for pointing out how a successful and effective environmental outcome can be achieved when political ideology is set aside and an inclusive, practical and consultative approach is taken. This is especially successful when non-disruptive technologies can be developed to replace older, environmentally harmful technologies.
If the participants at Montreal had adopted Craig’s approach, IE; The immediate abolition of all refrigeration, and other industrial uses of CFCs,( even HCFC’s and asthma inhalers ) nothing would have been achieved.
You are also quite correct in asserting the value of promoting new clean(er) technology.
Craig demands the complete shut down of the coal industry. Not only is such a radical demand completely impractical, with devastating economic consequences, but would have less climate benefit than simply abolishing the use of Marine grade No.6 fuel (bunker oil).
The economic effect of switching the global shipping fleet to less harmful fuel alternatives, would immediately remove the largest single source of man made pollution.
The economic downside of bunker oil pollution, is non-existent and
actually beneficial.
You are correct, we should be encouraging better clean(er) technology, not fighting political/ideological battles.
Craig I don’t agree with your views or those of your old friend Steve Vachss.
Both views would score 0/10 and not stand up to critical review by global qualified scientists and academics in any field of science.
You both fail to understand the history of the philosophy of human endeavour and in particular as it applies to all technical sciences by nature.
For both of you to suggest that we have reached the end game of clean energy generation science at Renewable Energy technologies is absurd.
The world’s best and brightest physicists, scientists, researchers and engineers have not abandoned their forward momentum and scientific pursuits because Craig Shields and Steve Vachss have declared that to be the case as of today.
For you to suggest that the scientific world has declared that clean energy generation technology development for all time henceforth is officially halted in perpetuity as of today is ludicrous, and insulting to thinking people everywhere and people who actually care about the future of our planet.
What planet does Craig Shields and Steve Vachss pretend to be representing in these mythical views.
But unfortunately I am not surprised by this attitude of yours Craig because this has been your relentless mantra for as long as you have had the reins to the 2GreenEnergy blog.
You are toxic to the subject of global greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and global clean energy generation imperatives for the advancement of global peoples going forward. And it totally escapes me why you think like this when you seem to pretend that you are a supporter of global scientific development and improvement in all things important to mankind.
In the legal world your contributions to the global debate would be considered rear-view and ‘mere puffs’.
It think it is long overdue that you step aside and let an expansive and forward thinking person develop the blog properly Craig. GHG and global clean energy generation imperatives in the modern era are much too important subjects to be left in your hands Craig.
Lawrence Coomber
Hi Lawrence,
Er,.. while I understand your frustration, I think you you are judging Craig far too harshly.
Craig’s contribution to the cause of a better environment and development of ‘Clean(er) Technology’ can’t be underestimated.
For many years Craig has been a highly respected and effective advocate. However, since the election of the new President, he seems to have become far more interested in radical politics than clean tech.
My comments to Craig are meant to be constructive, not personal. I sincerely want Craig to refocus on positive advances in environmental technology, no matter how imperfect, while focusing less on fighting a political-ideological Crusade.
Since the Trump victory, many leftist advocates seem to have rejected the value of discussion. They appear too bitter and obsessed to be interested in discussing or even debating issues concerning environmental technology.
Craig, (like many others of the American left), seems to have stopped moving forward, instead ‘circled the wagons’. The defeat of their dreams is far more traumatic for the left than conservatives when experiencing changes in political fortune.
The left are “believers’. They lack the benefits of pragmatism and perspective. Drawn primarily from academics, idealists and supported by the young, the left are always a mixture of nativity and moral passion, making defeat so hard to accept.
Conservatives, are drawn from those who are used to pragmatic solutions, compromises and overcoming setbacks with patient diligence. It’s easier to adapt, when your not a crusader.
However Lawrence, I believe Craig’s condition is only temporary ! Craig, like most of the US left, will adapt. We must help him shake off the hysteria that seems to have gripped his fellow travelers, help him refocus on what’s really important.
Craig’s passion is sometimes a little misdirected, and he may place too much faith in ‘heroes’, (especially if they’re people he’s met :)) but that doesn’t outweigh his enormously valuable contribution, basic integrity and sincerity.
As I say, we must show Craig our personal support during his hour of despair (even if he ignores it).
His voice is just too valuable to lose !
One long term commenter seemingly assails Craig by saying “While you rail against the environmental harm caused by faulty or poorly maintained pipelines, others set to work inventing and developing low impact, much safer, more environmentally friendly pipelines.” Whether his position is accurate or not what I’ve done is not rail against incineration but worked at inventing and developing much safer and more environmentally friendly new concept technology that has the ability to scale to whatever size is needed and to use all three thermal conversion processes – namely combustion, gasification and pyrolysis. Email LBlevins@aaecorp.com with positon paper in the subject line for a position paper showing why this is one of the weapons we can use to defeat induced global warming.
Hi Craig,
You’ve written, “The ‘business as usual’ scenario would result in a rise in temperature at about 5 degrees C by the end of the 21st Century, which would cause a level of suffering on this planet so severe that it would be hard to quantify; it would mean huge loss in habitable land mass (due to desertification and sea-level rise), the demise of many of the world’s great cities, hundreds of millions of climate refugees, huge extinction of animal species (including the loss of all animal ocean life except jellyfish), uncontrolled infectious disease due to skyrocketing population in insects, shortages of food and potable water, etc. It also means the end of permanent shorelines, as sea-level rise will continue for centuries to come. The list goes on for pages.”
These potentials are shocking to the average reader, but merely a cold reminder of the current path forward for eyes that have been turned toward the data.
From 1970 to 2010, global humanity grew from 3.7B to 6.9B (up 86%), while everything else with a backbone fell by half. That’s shown by studied trends following 10,680 populations among 3,038 species.
Humanity is now expected to reach 9.6B by 2050. That’s if events allow.
People often talk of the need for – and the cost of – changing our paradigm and our product streams compatible with sustainability. They talk of shifting more quickly from toxic prehistoric sunlight to well-proven forms of modern sunlight energy. All desperately needful.
For most people, though, the explosive nature of exponential growth eludes human intuition, if not understanding. Our continuing inability to perceive and deal appropriately with the cumulative effect of small changes over time has consequences that threaten many important facets of our lives. The appropriate sense of urgency too often eludes us.
We now collectively endanger not merely civilization and the progress of humanity. We persist mechanically tossing loaded dice with the essential nature of our planet and the health of every species.
Climate disruption aside, we’ve doubled since 1970, and everything else with a backbone fell by half.
Many swords twist above our heads, but most hang upon how many we are. Yet population control is the “third rail” of human discourse.
Out or fear, people are moved to ask, “Well, whose population?” suspecting their tribe might be bred out of existence (or out of authority).
So often – against the voice of reason and grim math – the appeal to freedom is leveraged, ignoring the hollowness of freedom as a principle under the reality of spiraling desperation and corruption.
Entities for which success means our downfall are now trading on our capacity for denial.
Our challenge is that we’re are asked to think methodically and to act against our nature (not to procreate) – both at once.
The saving grace is it’s also in our nature to love, to share, and to cooperate. That’s how we emerged from our fragile primal origins.
We mustn’t sacrifice the liberty within our sustainable evolution, for the sake of the fleeting, shortsighted, and cliff-bound dogma of self-interest.
Folks may reply, “You’re telling me I can’t have a kid?” No. I’m saying the planet isn’t infinite. We need to work together to have a future.
Excellent. In response to your question: “You’re telling me I can’t have a kid?” I would say, “No, but if you’re contemplating having more than 2 – 3 and you’re a decent person, the concept of sustainability should weigh heavily on your thinking on the subject.”
Keep up the good fight Craig but perhaps you need to be a bit more careful not to offend the deniers that seem to think there is a planet B.
Even among those that consider themselves well educated there seems to be a lack of willingness to admit that our mother ship can only handle so much of a load.
She will persist, whether we humans are intelligent enough to manage our impact or destroy ourselves. I just don’t like the thought that we are taking so many other life forms with us.
Can we identify a sustainable population given the standard that we demand? Are we capable of overcoming superstitions that cripple our ability limit over population?
A species with no predators (but ourselves) and no means of survival of the fittest in a physical sense at the mercy of technology. What are the chances we can collectively come to realization that we must end war, love our neighbors children, manage our birth rate and treat children as precious beings and realize quality over quantity before we reach the tipping point?
You ask a fabulous question here, Ron. I can only say that there is no answer, other than that which you and I help create.
Here’s a blog post I wrote in 2010 that addresses this issue: http://www.2greenenergy.com/2010/09/25/predicting-our-energy-future/, in which I pretend to be reading a crystal ball. It concludes:
Oh, but what’s this I see? Is there, in fact, something unforeseen and incredibly dramatic that might happen? A grassroots uprising? People as furious with our lame approach to energy as they were to the Vietnam War 40 years ago? Henry Kissinger said recently, “If it weren’t for the loathing that the common American had for the war, we’d still be there.” I suppose public outcry actually could make a difference ….
But …. oh, rats. The crystal has gone dark. That’s all for now.
Sorry to be a bit indecisive, but The Great Shieldsini sees a future that could go either way. Perhaps what the crystal is telling me is that our energy future is not a matter of fate. Rather, it lies in our own hands.
Marcopolo you are right.
I was overly harsh on Craig and I apologise Craig.
You are right again that it was a sign of the frustration I have about the very narrow tracks that many in Craig’s camp function within. I would not feel inspired or enlightened as a technocrat dumbing down and being cajoled into accepting these narrow self imposed limits that Craig and his main body of supporters seem so comfortable subscribing too.
Its anti thinking to most everything worthwhile that I have experienced in life so far to be honest.
Anyway “que sera sera’ and I apologise again Craig, and all the best for whatever it is that you are actually espousing for the global future to a very vulnerable and fragile constituency around you it seems.
Lawrence Coomber
Scientist could not seriously researched the devastating effects of “Nuclear Inventions ” To think of the staggering nod of “Nuclear Waste Plants ” and Nuclear fashioned chemicals that need Disposal is frightening .WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO DUMP IT? without causing a negative activity to humans . The atmosphere is depleted off the safe oxygen we need to survive ……
Oxygen in the oceans are depleted ,in the forest ,on land ,,,,,all these areas are lurking with cocktails of gases,atoms and ions ,particles which are not human or climate friendly
Scientist like to be creators inventors. But if the invention is going to kill lives or dangerous to the planet ,alters climate, poisons living forests,decays coral gardens ,,causes brain damage ,then its brutal
e.g. Is the nuclear waste tunnelled into the ice in Greenland in a bunker the cause of the tsunami Contents buried were Radioactive coolant, thousands of gallons of sewage/diesel fuel, MT of PCBs – a chemical coolant, banned in 1979
CLIMATE CHANGE IS A EFFECT . ABUSE AND MISUSE OF NUCLEAR PRODUCTS,NUCLEAR CHEMICALS AND NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY this has upset the natural formation process in Space,Oceans,environment and land .The atmosphere is choked with nuclear debris and residue
The Oceans dumped with nuclear radioactive waste,and plants some waste with high content of radioactive substance that can continue to chain react for 100 yrs
Nuclear medicine waste, nuclear fuel residue from vehicles in space,air,sea and highways
To know of something does not necessarily mean you understand it because if you understand you will know the effects and solutions
E=Mc2. Create. Radioactive technology. Eisenstein
Bohr= effects. Of E=Mc2 ,The effects of radioactivity and properties in executing E=Mc2 model for chemicals or technology
Lise martinez..consequences of E=MC2. Lise Martinez theories harp on the consequences of E=Mc2 radioactivity misuse
Rutherford – solution for radiation Rutherfords theory focus on Solution for radiation abuse from using E=Mc2