When Should We Address the Threat of Global Warming?
Theresa S. wrote in about global warming doom and gloom Sci-Fi novel “The End of the Dream,” and mentioned that her favorite line is: “Can you really afford to be wrong?”
Hi, Theresa; thanks for writing. Yes, that’s it exactly. The consequences of ignoring the impending disaster is incalculably large.
I’m reminded of the interview I conducted for my next book (“Renewable Energy – Following the Money”) a few months ago with the CATO Institute’s Jerry Taylor. He’s an extremely articulate and well-prepared spokesperson for the right wing perspective on environmentalism, and I learned a great deal from the discussion. But here is where I have to say that I lost respect for his thinking. He explained (I’m paraphrasing without going back to the tape of the conversation, but this is very close):
Global warming is a small problem now, but we agree that it will be a big problem in 100 years. So let’s spend a little bit of money and attention on it now, and a large amount in 100 years.
I kid you not. Now I know that we, as a species, are not good at long-range planning; coincidentally, I wrote this piece on that very subject just yesterday. But we’re not that short-sighted, are we? This strikes me as the mentality of the heroin addict who, I presume, thinks: OK, I’ve ruined the rest of my life, but who cares, because I’m high as a kite right now.
With some agreement to work together and to make mutual sacrifices, we have the opportunity to address the most significant threat we’ve ever faced vis-a-vis mankind’s survival. But we think it’s a good idea to wait to see if the problem goes into a “run-away” mode and prove conclusively that we’ve ruined our planet before we take substantive action?
Sorry. I know we humans are not as sharp as we were 50 years ago, but we’re simply not that stupid.
We have to understand the fact that if we in the U.S. work to reduce our CO2 emissions, it will make very little difference unless the rest of the world also works to reduce CO2 emissions. Therefore, it is important for us to work on technologies that can also be applied in other countries, many of which have much higher population densities than ours and are poorer They will dramatically increase their CO2 emissions as they become more prosperous and demand more energy unless they can dramatically increase energy production without increasing CO2 emissions.
Take India, for example. It’s population density is about eight times greater than ours and its population is almost four times greater than ours. During their monsoon season, solar power would be ineffective. High winds would create problems with wind power. Thus, in India, solar and wind power would not be acceptable. What is left? There are other countries which have similar problems.
We have to address the problem of CO2 emissions now, and that includes energy technologies that are practical in other countries.
Everyone needs to do anything they can to reduce their electrical usage. If you own your home, it needs to be insulated to need heating or cooling only during extreme weather. Whether you rent or own, you can replace appliances as they wear out with more energy-efficient versions; lighting can be either fluorescent or (if you can afford it) LEDs. If you own a business, look around for similar opportunities. Talk to family, friends, and acquaintances about this issue.