

One last chance to save mankind  - nickb
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true&print=true

======
jsdalton
I agree with his premise, though I don't entirely agree with his conclusions.

I've come to think that the problem with our approach to global warming right
now is that it's been yoked to environmentalism as a broader, and in many
ways, spiritual cause. Many of us are guilty of using the threat of global
warming to shepherd other goals in there...e.g. renewable or alternative
energy, resource conservation etc.

I happen to be inclined toward spiritual environmentalism myself, but if the
earth is REALLY warming up due to human caused carbon inputs, we are fucked if
we think a few extra wind farms and energy-conscious homes are going to solve
anything.

The only solution I think mankind is even capable of undertaking is a
technology solution...i.e. we need to find a way of getting carbon out of the
air and into the ground. It may not be pretty, cheap, or some nirvana of
holistic living, but it's actually how the problem will get solved.

Don't know if I'm making sense, but this is just what I was thinking about
recently.

~~~
jerf
One of the proofs that the advocacy has become spiritual is precisely that
engineering solutions are verboten. You can't engineer your way to
spirituality, you can only suffer you way to it. (And if the poor must suffer
twice as much, well, that's the price of my spirituality.)

If CO2 were a real problem and we were actually interested in solving it,
engineering solutions are not _a_ option, they are the _only_ option if the
alarmists are correct. We must not only stop putting so much out there, we
must actively take out what we have put in.

Yes, I use the word "alarmist" and I'm basically a "doubter"; I'll self-label
so there's no need to accuse. A small-but-significant portion of the reason
why is the fundamental unseriousness of the alarmists on this point; if it's a
problem, then let's _fix it_ , not use global warming as an excuse to
implement a whole raft of policies that oh-so-coincidentally you wanted even
before it's was a problem and not-so-coincidentally aren't all that effective
against global warming.

(The whole "we can't afford to take engineering risks we don't understand" is
complete nonsense. Apparently we know with 100% certainty what is coming down
the pike with our current emissions, and that is Complete Doom. It's hard to
beat a negative like that and... frankly, engineering isn't exactly unfamiliar
with that condition anyhow. Apparently we can predict the climate with 100%
certainty _unless_ we actually try to use this knowledge to fix the problem,
and we must instead only engage in actions that by the IPCC's own admission
and models will cost trillions and do next-to-nothing. See, I just have
trouble wrapping my head around this whole meme-complex as an engineer; either
we have a real problem and engineering solutions should be on the table, or
engineering solutions shouldn't be on the table because we don't have a real
problem, but trying to split the difference is just inconsistent. BTW, if you
believe in AGW but you also believe that engineering solutions should be on
the table then I would _not_ label you an alarmist; I reserve the term for
those who are using nakedly using AGW as a means of advancing all-but-
unrelated political agendas, not those who honestly believe there's a problem
that should be solved in the most effective manner possible, whatever that may
turn out to be. I don't really agree that this is a problem (there are great
problems but they lie elsewhere and don't have one nice catch-phrase), but if
I'm wrong, hey, let's _fix_ it! It's worth saying again.)

~~~
celoyd
On spirituality: Yes, a lot of thinking about global warming resembles
apocalypticism and moral panic. Some of it is downright horrifying. But that
people argue for something incorrectly doesn't make it incorrect. (And
apocalypticism and moral panic are presumably adaptive behaviors.)

On acceptance of engineering solutions: Are they really verboten among more
than a few factions? Do you have numbers on how many people are an in the
alarmist category v. AGW believers like me who accept or encourage engineering
solutions? I don't, but I bet it's not as bad as you suggest. Alarmists, like
all borderline kooks, are overrepresented in the press because they're fun to
read about. I think almost all of us are sane enough that we want the best
solution to what we think is a serious problem.

On environmentalism pork in AGW policy: This is a problem. Some of that
ethanol stuff, for example, is reminiscent of the rumors that drafts of the
Patriot Act had been sitting on a shelf for hears. But for some other
measures, there's a more charitable interpretation of the fact that
environmentaists were asking for them before we were at the point of crisis.

~~~
yummyfajitas
An engineering solution we could build today: nuclear power. Ask any
mainstream environmentalist what they think about it. See also opposition to
GM food.

This doesn't even get into the horrified reactions you hear when you bring up
geoengineering. Climate models (which we trust, right?) tell us that careful
geoengineering can prevent reverse AGW.

Side note: the idea that the Patriot act was sitting on the shelf for years is
more than just a rumor. Joe Biden confirmed that he wrote the original version
of it in 1995.

[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html?tag=newsL...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.0)

~~~
fp
Nuclear power is not an option. There are about three companies in the world
that have the know-how to build a nuclear power plant. And they are already at
the limit of their building-capacity.

Also, some people argue that the nuclear fuel resources are rather limited and
will support even the existing plants for less than 100 years. For a
significant reduction (10%-20%. No idea if that is enough to fight global
warming) of CO2 emissions, it would be necessary to build at least three times
as many nuclear plants as there are today.

------
menloparkbum
Carbon trading makes me realize that my idealism is waning as I rapidly
approach old age. I agree with Lovelock in that it seems like a gigantic scam.
However, rather than outrage, I'm thinking "How can I get in on the ground
floor of this gigantic scam?"

~~~
medearis
I couldn't really find much in what he had to say about WHY it is a "scam."
The linked article requires registration and is cut off before it starts
explaining why "this approach is misguided."

While carbon trading may not be a solution for global warming, it is one of
the few models we have for using market incentives to curb carbon emissions in
the short term.

~~~
m0nty
I think there's some info in here:

<http://www.carbontradewatch.org/pubs/carbon_neutral_myth.pdf>

It's been a while since I read it through but their basic point is that carbon
credits are to the environment what indulgences were to the mediaeval church.

~~~
ovi256
Mediaeval Catholic church please. No other church sold indulgences (the other
major church, Eastern Orthodox, definitely did not). Yeah, I'm a semantic
nazi.

PS: great comparison, I'll steal it for my own arguments. With your permission
of course.

~~~
m0nty
"With your permission of course."

Not my comparison, so go ahead. The PDF I linked to was interesting because
I'd always wondered if carbon trading (in all its forms) helped much, and the
answer seems to be "no".

------
electromagnetic
He's just repeating crap that's been said for centuries "the earths too
populated to sustain!". They've been saying it forever, yet populations are
still growing and so is food production.

 _"the cull during this century is going to be huge, up to 90 per cent. The
number of people remaining at the end of the century will probably be a
billion or less. It has happened before: between the ice ages there were
bottlenecks when there were only 2000 people left"_

The first part is laughable, his citation was a decrease in rice production
'predicted' because of global warming. At worst (if rice went extinct) only
about 2 billion people would be at risk of potential starvation, however as
the temperatures increase so do the ranges in which plants grow so when rice
isn't producible other food will be and these foods already have a high
productivity for plants. For the majority of the century rice production would
likely be switched between the different types of rice; areas that start
getting more droughts would end up growing drought resistant strains and in
areas that get flooded, well then you'd grow the deep water rice.

The last part of that quote is just full out laughable. There's no evidence of
significant decreases in human population in the early 500,000 years of human
existence. The biggest population declines in humanity have happened
relatively recently, namely the black plague and the spanish flu and all the
major disease outbreaks. I'd love to hear where he got th figure '2000' from,
because that would have shown in our genes.

If the human population really had dropped to 2000 people, the human race
would have gone extinct. If he's talking about modern humans (us) then this is
100% bullshit, because we haven't seen anything like an ice age because we've
been around for 10,000 years. If he's talking about the Cro-Magnon then it's
BS again because they largely supplanted the Neanderthals by adapting to the
warmer weather better. If he's talking about... oh wait the humans that lived
through an ice age were the Neanderthals, which pretty much thrived during it,
they lived in Southern Britain and Northern Britain at the time was a glacier!
I mean his claim is laughably moronic, because the one time when homo sapiens
were truly at risk in the Ice Ages we would see it, but the Neanderthals lived
throughout most of Europe and the Middle East.

Here's a link to prove my point,
[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Carte_Nea...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Carte_Neandertaliens.jpg)
the red dots are where Neanderthal fossils have been found, and it even shows
where the glaciers extended to during the Ice Age.

I mean, if you look at modern human population estimates, yes it's been below
5,000... _because we'd just evolved!_ The lowest estimated population is
before fossil evidence of modern humans, IE pre-8000BC. A similar thing will
have happened with the Cro-Magnons, as they simply expanded and supplanted the
Neanderthals, likely the same as Homo Sapiens Sapiens did to the Cro-Magnon.
Human population likely never dipped below hundreds of thousands because a new
species simply overtook the last. In fact Homo Sapiens Sapiens came right at
the advent of agriculture when humans stopped being migratory and were truly
affected by environmental change (IE you couldn't just follow your food).

/Rant over.

Summary: This guy's more quack than a duck.

~~~
njharman
The thing that made me doubt.

"What about work to sequester carbon dioxide?

That is a waste of time. It's a crazy idea..."

"So are we doomed?

There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive
burial of charcoal[aka sequestered CO2]..."

------
c1sc0
Actually the most interesting point brought up in the article wasn't about
carbon trading, but about the future of our species:

"I don't think we can react fast enough or are clever enough to handle what's
coming up" - James Lovelock

vs.

"Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create
superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended." - Vernor
Vinge

~~~
Rod
Quoting economist John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006):

 _"The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look
respectable."_

Remove the word "economic" from the quote, and it still applies perfectly. No
expert has ever been able to predict where the human species will be in a few
decades.

------
ivankirigin
Creating scarcity of a good available in the commons is pretty straight
forward. The devil is in the details though, especially for something like
carbon which affects pretty much everything.

I would generally prefer a tax on coal and oil, which is easier to account
for, and doesn't pick a winner. The main problem is that taxes like this
typically go into general funds, rather than helping the problem with, say,
investment in research into alternatives.

------
gruseom
What an embarrassingly vain and foolish title.

------
hendler
I wouldn't write off carbon trading yet. Trading of emissions now may not be
enough to do any offsetting (only shift monies around), but as the trading
system grows to be accountable and based on harder science, then why not, as
the article points out, include Lovelock's idea of burying charcoal as part of
the "carbon trading" market?

------
jwb119
as far as i can tell, carbon trading is not directly subsidized by the
government as lovelock seems to imply.

the closest thing i can find is subsidies for emissions reductions equipment
(which could allow the company purchasing the equipment to then receive some
compensation by selling capacity). am i missing something?

~~~
anamax
> as far as i can tell, carbon trading is not directly subsidized by the
> government as lovelock seems to imply.

It's subsidized in the sense that few people will buy carbon credits unless
they're being forced to do so.

------
Spyckie
interesting... I'm taking a class on the economics of Global warming, but as
we just started I don't know if I can comment just yet.

However, allowance trading worked very well in controlling acid rain - one of
the incentives to use it on carbon emissions as well.

~~~
mhartl
_However, allowance trading worked very well in controlling acid rain - one of
the incentives to use it on carbon emissions as well._

There's a key difference: the time lag between emissions and acid rain is
short. Stopping the formation of nitric and sulfuric acids in the atmosphere
happened shortly after the emissions ended. Not so with carbon dioxide; the
time lag is decades. Even if all CO2 emissions stopped tomorrow, the Earth
would still continue to warm.

This might seem like cause for pessimism, and perhaps it is. But it also
undermines the sense of urgency, almost desperation, among many
environmentalists that we should "do something", no matter how ill-thought-out
that something may be. It seems better just to wait, and try not to do too
much harm in the short run.

Maybe we're doomed, maybe technology will save us. Either way, it's going to
be a heck of a ride. :-)

