Global Warming Impacts and Solutions
For the past fifty years or so, the human race has nearly tripled in population. The United States has doubled in the same time, to just over 300 million. Americans learned to build bigger and more powerful automobiles, massive shopping centers, commercial jet airliners, bigger and more comfortable homes with central air conditioning, and developed a culture of consumerism which drives the economic engine of the entire world. Americans consume a quarter of the world’s man-made energy production, represent a quarter of the world’s economy, but only have 3 of 70, about 4%, of the world’s people.
America is seen by the outside world as fat, lazy, and wasteful. Americans don’t care about anyone else. What is worse, other nations wish to emulate these wasteful, destructive ways. Unfortunately, Nature has begun to rebel. Soon, the rebellion may take its toll on our culture.
Oil was just discovered in the U.S. for commercial uses about 150 years ago, and in that time mankind has consumed about half of all the economically recoverable oil that has or will ever be found. Between the combustion of oil, gas, coal, and other fossil fuel derivatives, the carbon dioxide concentration in the air has increased more than 70% in the last 150 years. There is no question that man is the cause. Nature is unforgiving in its judgment and punishment of the offending culprit.
Nature’s solution to a world governed by man is to begin to overheat. This is global warming. Temperatures are on the rise. The poles are melting, the glaciers have nearly disappeared, the coral reefs are dying, and the cyclonic storms become more severe and more numerous. The sea levels rise, at first only ten meters in this century, but 50 meters in the next. Droughts will be longer, climates become more arid, and soil turns to dust and sand. Water sources dry up, food becomes scarce, and economies are wrecked. Foolish leaders, in a desperate attempt to steal from others that have better environments, foment wars of acquisition. Instead of fighting for means to solve the crises, nations fight for what’s left over in a dying human culture. It is Armageddon in our own time.
Human leaders are not unlike bacteria in a culture on a Petri dish. Merely place a few drops of sugar water on the dish, and watch the culture bloom around the resource. Times are good. Wait. Within hours or days, the bacteria farthest from the sugar die, and later, the entire culture is dead. No worries, just get another dish, some more sugar, and some more bacteria, then try again. The mark of pure genius, according to many human leaders, is to try the same thing over and over in hopes that there will be a different outcome. Scientists know this method. It is called blind faith. Scientists also know the outcome of these approaches. It is called death.
We are an intelligent species. We should be able to outperform bacteria.
Global warming is evidence that we are failing in this regard.
What do you think we need to do to adapt?
America is seen by the outside world as fat, lazy, and wasteful. Americans don’t care about anyone else. What is worse, other nations wish to emulate these wasteful, destructive ways. Unfortunately, Nature has begun to rebel. Soon, the rebellion may take its toll on our culture.
Oil was just discovered in the U.S. for commercial uses about 150 years ago, and in that time mankind has consumed about half of all the economically recoverable oil that has or will ever be found. Between the combustion of oil, gas, coal, and other fossil fuel derivatives, the carbon dioxide concentration in the air has increased more than 70% in the last 150 years. There is no question that man is the cause. Nature is unforgiving in its judgment and punishment of the offending culprit.
Nature’s solution to a world governed by man is to begin to overheat. This is global warming. Temperatures are on the rise. The poles are melting, the glaciers have nearly disappeared, the coral reefs are dying, and the cyclonic storms become more severe and more numerous. The sea levels rise, at first only ten meters in this century, but 50 meters in the next. Droughts will be longer, climates become more arid, and soil turns to dust and sand. Water sources dry up, food becomes scarce, and economies are wrecked. Foolish leaders, in a desperate attempt to steal from others that have better environments, foment wars of acquisition. Instead of fighting for means to solve the crises, nations fight for what’s left over in a dying human culture. It is Armageddon in our own time.
Human leaders are not unlike bacteria in a culture on a Petri dish. Merely place a few drops of sugar water on the dish, and watch the culture bloom around the resource. Times are good. Wait. Within hours or days, the bacteria farthest from the sugar die, and later, the entire culture is dead. No worries, just get another dish, some more sugar, and some more bacteria, then try again. The mark of pure genius, according to many human leaders, is to try the same thing over and over in hopes that there will be a different outcome. Scientists know this method. It is called blind faith. Scientists also know the outcome of these approaches. It is called death.
We are an intelligent species. We should be able to outperform bacteria.
Global warming is evidence that we are failing in this regard.
What do you think we need to do to adapt?
Tags: biomass, carbon, credits, energy, environment, gas, geothermal, nuclear, ocean, oil, More…
Views: 8
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Paul A. Curto on -
Absolutely. The sooner, the better. Carbon fuels must go, or we are finished.
-
Permalink Reply by Charles W. McDonald on -
You're so right . We are all going to die soon. The oceans will be flooding us soon. LOL! I get a good laugh when I listen to you bleeding heart greenies.
-
Permalink Reply by Jessee McBroom on -
Hello Paul. Jessee here. My view on all of this energy demand stuff is quite simplistic. The utilization of the two compounds water and salt to meet our energy needs and the worlds' needs will do more good at a far more economical rate and a more enviromentally friendly approach; so long as closed looped applications are pursued than any other approach to meeting energy demands that mankind could take at this point in time.
-
Permalink Reply by Dwight Nager on -
Paul,
Thanks for your lead post in this discussion. I really liked your hard hitting note on America's role and how we are seen. I've spent many years with those sentiments; though they may have aged and mellowed for me a bit due to some observations I'll share below.
The graph Al Gore showed in his film of carbon and Earth temperatures over the past 650,000 years (and the conclusion: "they fit!") is the only really compelling thing I've seen on this topic.
From that graph, there is such tight correlation that there is surely causation. I am open to either of two directions of causation: earth activity resulted in high carbon resulting in high temps; or, solar activity resulted in temp variations that resulted in high carbon in hotter periods.
My next comment may test folks patience on this topic.
Looking on the bright side, if we are warming the Earth, much land mass is in the uninhabited North of Canada and Russia. If we fail in our efforts to stem carbon, and that indeed proves to be a source of intense warming, I suspect a silver lining is that large new swaths of land will become better suited to human habitation. The Russians might one day find themselves deep in Burmese and Bangladeshi immigrants. Stranger things have happened.
People have immigrated for environmental reasons in the past. The potato blight in Ireland killed many; and filled America with a big wave of immigrants. And I among others am an American because of it. Trauma for my ancestors; but it's worked out fine for my family.
I think it is important and helpful for us to actively put such real world items on the table. Many people resist supporting global warming initiatives because they sense a political/economic climate of fear and criticism. Those people's support will be best won by reasoned dialogue. Without their support, on the other hand, getting things done will be tough going.
Along with Paul's observations about America, I'd throw out some postives of 'the American Century". Human life expectancy has roughly doubled in 100 years. The world's people have an average wealth level as never before. Only 200 years ago, kerosene lamps and horse drawn carriages were the elements of the wealthy!
Looking forward, We've just opened up the molecule for atomic-level manipulation. What will that the new nanotechonlogies bring us? We have more people with more ideas and more capital than ever before. And more global commitment to innovation. The generation that is now in college takes tech change as a given.
Just 20 years ago, if one had foretold that today T. Boone Pickens could have 160,000 people doing something called e-mail to Congress after having come together on a voluntary web-based collaboration, said person would not have been taken seriously.
Toady, a guy I knew in college is now a Harvard professor written up in the Economist magazine for his efforts to learn how to capture carbon into solid form and literally drop it in the ocean. Will it work? Who knows. But it's an indicator of the array of things out there.
While there are postives, no sense being pollyannaish. Bad things may occur. What if resources do peter out due to consumptive American style living? What if we and our successors don't make it technologically? I've lived in India. What is most amazing about the 700 million Indian poor is the culture of self-respect and dignity. It's shocking. To see a beautiful, striking women in tasteful brilliant clothing with regal posture picking through a trash dumpster is a common thing there. Wow.
If we fail, if we consume too much and don't fill in with the science and technology, wither the species? The Indian masses, a bit like monks anywhere around the world, show us that a quality human experience can occur in the absence of material regalia. If the American boom, and folks imitating us, drives us to a cliff in world welfare, human beings may be in a position where they must cultivate their capabiltiy for dignity in the face of poverty, or lash out at each other in Malthusian misery. Both the postive and the negative capabilities are in our species.
From all that (and apologies for such breadth of comment / thanks for perserverence in reading the post if one made this far) I conclude that to move on Paul's question regarding global warming, we may well find we need to understand our own political ecology.
I am seeking real practical ways to unite the Red America and the Blue America in action, to move forward initiatives that truly advance the concerns and objectives of each. To do that, I find it requires deep thinking and respect about the objectives of these two (caricatured) facets of America.
As I look back on my experiences, I am sincerely grateful for deep philosophical things I've learned from both, and sincerely respectful of ways in which staunch adherents of the two "sides" seek to live their values. The country is a big enough place for "both" to flourish, with regional variances -- and also big enough for other notions (both farther "left" "right" "center" or non-aligned). Life is indeed richer for the variation. Even if people who don't agree with any of us are -- of course ;-) -- an annoyance!
I am drawn to Whitman's song of America. "Contradict myself?", he says,"so I contradict myself".
Al Gore's critics are right that he lives in a mansion, travels with a posse in jets, and has a lavish houseboat. But that doesn't mean he's not got a point to make about global warming. George Bush's crtics are similary right about the Iraq War and oil. But that doesn't mean that he didn't succeed in getting al Qaeda to show their true colors to Arabs by their merciless killing and maiming of Iraq's Sunni's over petty transgressions of ruthless al Qaeda dogma.
We can't just say we want to unite people; we have to apply real talent with real conviction to do that.
Paul asks what we need to do to adapt? I think T. Boone's thing is the best I've seen. Because it hits America right in the common sense noggin, like Ross Perot did for the budget deficit in 1992. It changes the angle from the old Red/Blue bickerfest.
So bottom line, Paul, what I'm seeking to do is push Boone's initiative as 'the art of the possible", and ask what added steps we can take to make it stronger and better, if at all. If we can get the Plan done, and do so in a manner that consolidates us as a force, we'll have the foundation and contacts to drive a next step.
Too narrow? Too optimistic? Curious to hear others thoughts!
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Paul A. Curto on
-
Pick has the vision and the resources to come up with a plan that's doable, to an extent, but does not address the problem globally. America's me me me complex is assuaged, but the plan becomes irrelevant if the world is not included.
Pick's arguments about $700 billion wasted are not convincing when you see what happened yesterday. World markets lost three trillion dollars yesterday, five trillion in a week.
Just a few years from now, when the tipping point has passed, and we are doomed to hundreds of years of catastrophies, people will complain to "leaders" why nothing was done. Why is my child starving? Why are there no jobs? Why is it so hot? Why are the hurricanes coming through four rounds through the alphabet? Why are we at war with so many countries?
The four horsemen of the apocalypse return with a vengeance.
I like your post because of contradictions. Is India part of the Plan? Is India part of the problem? Can India be part of the solution?
The right question, as Asimov said, is, "Can all citizens of the world work together for a better future?"
I want all Nations to be part of this. Pick has a good start for us, but it is only a tiny piece of the solution.
What do you think?
-
Permalink Reply by Brandon on -
This is a joke. The AI Gore movie is alarmist at best and most scientist agree. The co2 levels have been massively higher in the past and temps didn't cook the planet. Most of Earths history has been at higher temps than today.
- Attachments:
-
-
image277.gif, 18 KB -
globaltemp.jpg, 35 KB
-
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Paul A. Curto on
-
Bacteria have been on earth for over a billion years. Your charts apply to bacteria, not humans. We have only been here in our current form since the last Ice Age, around 11,000 years.
Your charts are accurate. The earth has survived by changing, and life by adapting to those changes.
You will note that your charts do not cover the last 11,000 years. Man has not adapted to the CO2 levels of the times of the dinosaurs.
However, there are a few dinosaurs in Washington. I have seen them, honestly!
-
Permalink Reply by Brandon on
-
We ( the H*** genus ) have been evolving for the last 2 million years and mammals for the last 210 million years!
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Paul A. Curto on
-
Neanderthal had hair nearly as thick as fur to protect against the stinging cold of the Ice Age. He disappeared at its end, when Cro-Magnon appeared. He could not adapt.
You are missing the point, Brandon.
How will we adapt?
-
Permalink Reply by Brandon on
-
By preparing ourselves for the future and not pretending we can stop it!
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Paul A. Curto on
-
Good answer!
© 2013 Created by PickensPlan.
Powered by
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
