The end of the world is nigh!
Jan. 30th, 2006 10:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueOn the radio this morning was a discussion about carbon emissions and global warming.
The general gist of it was, that the environmental scientists, have now accepted that climate change is now inevitable, and if we can keep our carbon emissions down, we may not hit the 'point of no return'.
The problem is, I can't really see enough people giving up cars, transport, electricity and all the other conveniences of life. Because 'their bit' is a drop in the ocean, and why should they when no one else will.
So basically, we're coming close to crisis point. Oil is running out. Climate change and icecap melting is now a question of 'how bad' not 'whether it'll happen'. Nuclear energy is about our only alternative - despite it's problems it's carbon emissions are low. Unfortunately the time to build a nuclear power plant is actually quite substantial.
So basically, if we can stop churning out carbon dioxide, we might be able to get away with a 2 degree temperature change, and a bit of icemelt, flooding and hurricanes.
Problem is, how do you tell America and China that they really really need to tidy their rooms? We're just about able to convince the rest of the EU that this could be a really big problem, but it looks like that might just be cutting the rest of the world another 10 years.
The details may be found on the BBC website
Oh, and there's a new BOFH episdoe - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/27/bofh_2006_episdoe_4/
The general gist of it was, that the environmental scientists, have now accepted that climate change is now inevitable, and if we can keep our carbon emissions down, we may not hit the 'point of no return'.
The problem is, I can't really see enough people giving up cars, transport, electricity and all the other conveniences of life. Because 'their bit' is a drop in the ocean, and why should they when no one else will.
So basically, we're coming close to crisis point. Oil is running out. Climate change and icecap melting is now a question of 'how bad' not 'whether it'll happen'. Nuclear energy is about our only alternative - despite it's problems it's carbon emissions are low. Unfortunately the time to build a nuclear power plant is actually quite substantial.
So basically, if we can stop churning out carbon dioxide, we might be able to get away with a 2 degree temperature change, and a bit of icemelt, flooding and hurricanes.
Problem is, how do you tell America and China that they really really need to tidy their rooms? We're just about able to convince the rest of the EU that this could be a really big problem, but it looks like that might just be cutting the rest of the world another 10 years.
The details may be found on the BBC website
Oh, and there's a new BOFH episdoe - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/27/bofh_2006_episdoe_4/
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 10:51 am (UTC)Just look at the marketing, media spin and competition involved in religion in the USA. Huge advertising billboards, televangelism, it's surely big business. We'll save your soul for only $99*.
Within American culture, religion, politics and business seem to be hopelessly intermingled rather than mutually exclusive, and it often proves to be a worring blend.
People will believe what they want to believe (or what they are told to believe) regarding religion, global warming or anything else for that matter. Consider that over 40% of Americans believe the bible to be literal truth (yes, literal, without metaphor, so their world is ~6000 years old, falling somewhat short of the generally accepted scientifically determined value of ~4.5 billion years! Also, during "Noah's flood", how come the ancient Egyptian civilisation wasn't at all affected? I could go on, but I won't - I doubt there's any need).
I think it's a kind of corollary of NIMBYism - until the effects of global warming hit their backyard, they will take no notice.
Maybe when the ocean swallows Florida, a few minds will be changed. Though given the amount of US cities built on swamps and reclaimed land, you'd think they'd be a little more concerned.
But then of course there's China, and India... it becomes essentially an "all or nothing" endeavour, I suppose, and given the odds of all nations complying, I think we'll be stuck with nothing. From here on in it looks likely to become damage limitation - perhaps less of an issue for the high-altitude or wealthy nations, but bad news for any low-lying, poor countries.
Politics and business have always tended to work on timescales of years; there was and is no scope for the long-term planning needed to avert something like this. There's even only one viable short-term "stop-gap" solution (nuclear power) but look at all the mess that has managed to surround that approach. Let's face it, we're doomed ;-)
*Caution: may require continual church attendance, toeing the line, and further donations - comes with lifetime guarantee!**
**Legal Addendum: lifetime guarantee void after death ;-)
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 11:01 am (UTC)Personally I think the larger number of major hurricanes in the last year or two is one of the first warning signs.
By the time something 'drastic enough' to not be explained away as 'just normal variance' happens, it'll be far too late.
It _is_ NIMBYism of a sort. Maybe in reverse a bit - I don't want to have to cut down on my resource usage, but everyone else should.
I don't know what the timescales are, but I have a feeling even if we started building enough nuclear power plants to cover our needs right now, it would be too little, too late.
Especially if you're trying to set examples for countries suffering major population/industrial growth, trying to jumpstart from 'underdeveloped' to 'world economy'. Can you _really_ see china/india accepting that they're just going to have to stay less developed than EU/US?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 12:54 pm (UTC)Yes, it probably is too late - hence the comment that it is likely to be a damage limitation exercise from here on in.
Yes, I wondered whether it could be described as inverse-NIMBYism, but I think it's more of an extension of NIMBY principles/mentality rather than a reverse application as such, so I settled for it being a corollary (yes, I am a little worried that I put this amount of thought and consideration into an essentially offhand comment).
Timescales for nuclear are ~5 years to build and get running IIRC, but add another 5 years for bureaucracy, particularly planning permission. Personally, I think the optimal strategy would be to slam out a few nuclear plants, subsidise/enforce microgeneration etc. (solar panels, miniature wind/water turbines, housing insulation) where possible, invest heavily in wave power (probably the only renewable with a viable output wattage) and hope for the best. Well, the optimal "solution" would be to discover cold fusion, or to vastly improve current nuclear fusion technology, but the chances are "vanishingly small" and "too small to think about" respectively, so we have to be realistic ;-)
As for the China/India scenario, I agree. Everyone plays an international game of "follow the leader", and the leading economic model seems to be the US, where you're not happy/"successful" unless you're driving a gas-guzzling 'SUV' and living in a house stuffed full of appliances. Everyone wants to live the American Dream, which may quickly prove to be a nightmare.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-01 12:17 pm (UTC)Install giant hamster-wheel style generators outside corner shops, and offer a free lottery ticket in exchange for five minutes of running on it.
Problem solved.