Atmospheric CO2 is higher than it’s ever been in the entirety of human existence — longer, even!
One can argue about the cause, but it’s pretty plain that it’s unprecedented. So what do we do about it?
CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.
Well, it does but humans don’t cause increased Co2.
Well, they do but it’s not like increased warming is a bad thing.
Well, it is but it’s too late to do anything about it.
Politically, it seems that little can get done but I find it interesting that insurance companies are becoming concerned and are starting to plan for the effects of global warming - at least according to the NYT today. The article pointed out that in the US, insurance companies are not lobbying carbon issues, just planning for zoning changes and disaster recovery. This quote jumped out.
[Quote=Frank Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America]
Insurance is heavily dependent on scientific thought. It is not as amenable to politicized scientific thought.
[/quote]
Leaving a sliver of hope that if global warming becomes bad for business, the political climate may change.
Set up solar powered machines in desert regions that mimic how trees extract co2 from the air and convert it to solid material. Stop demolishing nuclear plants Germany. Buy electric cars.
Do such machines exist? And, do they do the job better than trees do?
Apparently they sort-of-almost-but-not-quite exist:
Better than actual trees? Clearly not, since they need more energy than sunlight provides.
Oh, that’s no problem, we’ll just use a . . . coal-fired power plant . . . wait . . .
The human race is ~250,000 years old, while plant and animal life are ~500 million years old
and the Earth’s atmosphere is what?- over two billion years old? Three billion? So we need to
go back quite a bit more than 250,000 years for a true sense of perspective, and part of the
perspective is that CO2 levels have probably been more than 5-10 times what they are now
for most of the 500 million-year history of life on the planet:
Phanerozoic Atmospheric CO2 Levels
Also, while present CO2 levels may be at a several 100-thousand year high, global temperatures
are not even at a present interglacial high; I believe they were higher 4,000 and 8,000 years ago.
Well, bear in mind we are still living in an ice age. (In an “interglacial period,” but that is something within an ice age.) In fact, all of human history and prehistory has happened in an ice age. We are not adapted to anything else. And, never before in the planet’s history has an ice age ended . . . abruptly.
The present ice age began over 2 million years ago. The last ~800,000 years of it are known
from Antarctic ice-core samples to have been characterized by a cycle of glacial and interglacial
episodes in which the interglacial temperature has risen steeply for several decades and then
plummeted, usually suddenly, into another glacial. See Wiki for graphs.
The Earth’s temperature was already on an interglacial unswing when athropogenic CO2 levels
began to rise.
There are a lot of news reports, but I don’t know if anything ever goes into the development phase.
This device supposedly works 1000x better than a tree. No idea what happened to it, if anything.
The current thinking is that much of the excess CO2 is anthropogenic.
If that’s correct, then the problem is too many people whose lifestyle essentially creates too much CO2, typically because of the carbon cost for production of stuff and convenience items such as comfortable travel.
If that’s correct, it’s way too late to do anything meaningful because the number of people wanting stuff and convenience way surpasses the number of people willing to sacrifice for a common good until clean energy is found.
Nor is clean energy likely to solve the underlying problem that so many people are simply consuming the earth. AGW is currently the hot cause, but but if we could produce absolutely clean energy in sufficient supply tomorrow, we’d only continue consuming the earth in 9 billion other ways. Getting rid of AGW will not address this overconsumption by an excessively successful species.
So…the thing to do about it is to try and figure out how to make money off the various ideas which will be advanced by the earnest and well-meaning to ameliorate AGW. At least, that’s what I’m doing about it, and except for that one Begley jr guy, so is everyone else. Why, I’m waiting for a first class airplane seat right now, and if I had a private jet I’d be taking that instead.
But if you’re willing to bike, go right ahead. And bless you.
Once again you need to show why other technological induced problems were controlled in the past even with a population increasing in the meantime, and doing something about those issues did not make civilization stop.
Your position also ignores that any talk of “it is too late do do something” ignores that there is even more dire scenarios coming if we do not start to control GWG emissions.
Something dire like what? Get three crops a year out of Canada? Make Siberia a net food producer? Create a seawall-building industry in Florida to rival the Netherlands?
And since when is the greatest good the furtherance of civilization? That’s my whole point, Gb. If all we do by solving AGW is make sure civilization advances, then what we accomplish is the complete consumption of the earth by the human species.
I’ll say it again, slowly:
From the perspective of environmentalism the worst thing we can do is things that advance the human species.
But hey, if you and your pards can just agree on exactly what it is we should do, that’s all I’m asking for, so I can make money off it. If it’s wind; great. Solar; great. Carbon sequestration; great. Nuclear; great. Right now it feels to me like we are slinging around Great Ideas in support of our Great Cause, but no one (except you and Begley jr) are buying into the idea of actually suffering in the interim. That’s why it’s a Lost Cause, you see. 'Cuz we gotta cut back now until the Plan works. Only then can we start consuming again without exacerbating AGW.
Contrary to your assertion, I am not aware of past times (except wars) where we are inclined to make current sacrifices for a Common Good.
Anyway, I just want a Plan so I know where to put my money so I can continue to fly first class with Mr Gore. And I don’t even care if it’s too late, or ineffective. Neither of those things will keep me from making money off the Plan.
And, how does one make money off those?
Let’s see . . .
Keep going, I’ve almost got my Bingo!
The issue is who will pay for it, in other words we need to prepare for it.
Incidentally, not controlling the emissions makes the already committed levels of the harm one can expect to be a moving target, history has shown that the longest it takes to make the situation stable the less likely is that policy makers can tell you when and how much one can then get from crops from Canada and Siberia.
I’ll say it again, environmentalists do not ignore population control, it is part of the solution.
And I’ll say it again:
You mean technologically, or what?
Where does ‘global warming is happening, but Jesus is coming back so it doesn’t matter’ fit in that list. That is a very serious concern, something like half of people in the US think Jesus is coming back by 2050.
Either way, even if the US drags its feet, alternative energy is picking up. The US spent something like 50-60 billion last year on it (compared to the 100 billion or so in Europe, and 50 billion in China). I tend to think China and Europe will hopefully compensate for our dragging our feet on this issue and I sincerely hope the world can address climate change with the US dragging its feet. If so, it will be the first sign we live in a multi-polar world (US, Europe, China, latin america, etc) rather than a world of 1 or 2 superpowers.
. . . Can’t find that on the card, for some reason.