When it comes to the debate about possible solutions to climate change, environmentalists are forever banging on and on about the fact that it is they who are 'armed' with nothing but the latest peer reviewed science. As well as that, how many more times have I got to hear that climate change is the most pressing crisis facing the whole of mankind - now war, poverty and disease have been relegated to second place? What is worse is the fact that when a solution (other than micro-managing humanity back to the Dark-ages, or worse, the caves) is put forward as a possible solution, it is green activists who are normally the first to poo-poo such solutions - and normally, in just one sentence.
This does make you wonder if environmentalists really do want to bring this climate change 'crisis' under control? Indeed, if humanity were to come up with a viable, reliable and peer reviewed scientific tool that could halt climate change, green activists would be put right out of business, they would affectively have their green rug snatched from right underneath them. Such is the emerging challenge that environmentalists appear to be facing from scientists involved in 'geo-engineering' plans and solutions. It seems that the greens would rather see the planet, and humans burn than support geo-engineering solutions.
For all the green talk about tampering with nature, human hubris, or how one environmental organisation based in Canada put it 'Gambling with Gaia', geo-engineering may very well offer some serious global solutions to climate change. Of course, it almost goes without saying, don't take my word for it, even the inventor of the hydrogen bomb, Edward Teller thinks the same, Teller argued that geo-engineering actually 'appears to be a promising approach'.
Ultimately, it is not the potential that geo-engineering has to halt climate change that is sneered at by most environmentalist, as far as most greens are concerned, geo-engineering does not address the core problem of climate change - for the greens, the core problem relating to climate change is in the domain of morality. The truth is, environmentalists do not really want to halt climate change, what they appear to want to stop and attack is all forms of overconsumption, overproduction and overpopulation. What the greens would really prefer is humanity to suffer first - and stop people believing in the idea that humans might one day conquer the threat of climate change. The greens dare not imagine such a thing as putting an end to climate change, that would just rob them of their raison d'etre - would it not?
BigC,
The thing is, the opposition towards geo-engineering is led, not by mere NIMBY's - far from it. Greenpeace is an international organisation who are at the forefront of environmental campaigning. They also appear to be the fiercest critics of geo-engineering solutions.
Not quite - only the most progressive greens (not many) realise that carbon free electricity production from nuclear power stations might also be a tech solution that should be supported. It's not true that nuclear power has 'little or no net advantage when the whole cycle is taken into account'. You only have to take a quick look at the highly successful French nuclear industry, that has been producing cheap, carbon free electricity for nearly 30 years - indeed, it is French 'expertise and money' that will help build state-of-the-art nuclear power stations in the UK.
Also, hydro power has been a target of environmentalists around the world for years - indeed, there have been many hydroelectric dam projects that have halted due to green protests - regardless of the fact that Third world nations actually need these dams for electricity production, clean water and self-determination.
The truth is, the greens would much prefer humanity to suffer. Instead of supporting more research in geo-engineering solutions, they prefer to highlight daft ideas like 'Earth Hour' or reducing our carbon footprint, which has its own perverse, anti-modernist and pussyfooting logic. The campaign to 'Save the Rainforest' for example, is more about holding back the economic (hence social) development of countries like Brazil, who need to chop down their malaria carrying mosquito-infested jungle in order to develop its agriculture. These are some of the real motives behind green politics, to put a halt to development in the West, and the Third World.
So someone seriously suggested that we launch an enormous fibrous mirror into space to sit between us and the sun? And they thought it was a good idea??
The only idea there I like is the artificial trees filtering the air, but even that has its disadvantages: How many tonnes of emmissions will be released in the creation of these trees? It's a catch 22.
I'm not a greeny by any means, and I believe we can knock this climate change issue on the head without a major impact on industry. Hell, if every house had a solar hot water system with half its roof covered in solar panels, it'd make a fair dent in the problem. Yes, it would be expensive, but if it were to start off with a subsidy from the country's government until the technology was more economically viable then it would be a win. If a watch face can be constructed so that it doubles as a solar panel (like some casio's and citizens, etc), then why not work this sort of technology into the windows of a multi-story building in inner city areas? To me that would seem less far-fetched with less bad side-effects than putting tonnes of Sulfur into the atmosphere. Of course there would still be the question of greenhouse gases released in the production.
Alternative energy sources in my mind are the best way to start, as we know where we stand with them, it's a current technology (though with some improvements needed), and is more likely to get public approval - after all it's mostly likely going to be us paying for these schemes. If Queensland in Aus can start geo-sequestration with it's coal power plants, I'm sure other richer countries can do as much, possibly more.
Joe.Bloggs,
Come now, I can almost hear in you the echos of the Victorian author and poet John Ruskin, who thought that the railway technology of his time was nothing but 'vandalism'.
There's lots of inexpensive things that can be done under the heading of geo-engineering - recycling on a global scale is a form of geo-engineering, the more we recycle, the less trees we cut down. If society painted the roofs of buildings white, this too would have grand geo-engineering effects.
The truth is, if the greens really want to get rid of GHG's like CO2 and methane, without damaging economic growth here in the West, and in developing nations, geo-engineering science offers solutions that do just that. It could be argued that it has been 200 years of unintentional geo-engineering that has warmed the globe, so it stands to reason that purposeful geo-engineering could reverse the global rise in CO2 and methane.
Unfortunately, they are supported by science, not economics. Very few green solutions make economic sense on any large scale.
sorry, must've clicked twice or something
Any kind of energy production that has a bi-product which is harmful to the environment and our health should be overlooked in favour of non-emitting (if that's a word) energy production.
I'm kinda surprised that you're still pushing the Nuclear agenda. If there was a definite safe way of disposing with the waste, and there was absolutely no chance of any kind of meltdown, then yeah, great. But until then, I'll stick with my geo, wind, light and water options. What's better: Cheap power with possibly devastating side-effects or expensive power which has no side-effects?
Yes - it is true that nuclear power has an element of risk attached to it- but proceeding to build brand new nuclear plants in the UK is a risk worth taking.
Free speech has its own risks - but the benefits of free speech make it a risk that is worth taking.
Nuclear power has its benefits too, once up and going it can produce an abundant of cheap energy, without hardly any emission whatsoever.
Nothing can be fully guaranteed, it is impossible for anyone to build a bridge or a tunnel and guarantee it will never collapse - according to your logic, we should just stop building bridges and tunnels.
So you will stick with your wind? What? Pour thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel pylons on the seabed? Weighing over 1000 tonnes each? That's just for the North Sea. I remember when Shell oil tried to dump 15,000 tonnes of oil platform in the North Sea, Greenpeace vilified them. So you would prefer to dump God-knows how many millions of tonnes of concrete worldwide on the seabed - I suppose that would make you a right-on eco-hero?
Nobody who knows me would even consider me environmentally savvy.
You do raise a good point: Current green projects hardly seem environmentally friendly. How many acres of ground have to be given up to put down more powerful solar arrays? The same goes for - as you said - laying down foundations for the tidal systems, or diverting water for hydrological systems. Australia had the problem with the Snowy Mountain Scheme, originally planned to divert 99% of natural flow to use in the seven hydro plants along the way - which is now reduced to 6% due to the environmental factors not being considered at the time (eco-systems downstream being starved of water).
To be honest I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about when you suggest pouring concrete world-wide into the sea beds for wind power. Maybe I've misread something...
Free speech in western countries is hardly free these days, with political correctness, cultural sensitivity, sexism, etc. etc. on the agenda. Nuclear power has as many - but different, obviously - issues. It still emits, just not CO2. A lot of money has to go into preparing the fuel once it's been mined. The cost goes right down to having the appropriate training for people who will be working in the plant, and ensuring the right amount of shielding is in place for the final storage facility of the waste product. How much money does the UK have to spend on this one single project? How does it compare - safety-wise and financially - to the other green projects which are possible? The only thing Nuclear will do is provide a base-load power supply. Why isn't the same amount of money which would be spent on nuclear projects instead spent on clean coal technologies, and carbon capture? Ultimately the goal would be to generate power without the use of any fuel (ie Coal, Gas, Uranium).
There's also the security side of the nuclear option: As we've seen - and you've experienced - the UK isn't immune from terrorist attacks. Having a nuclear station is a neon sign on a dark night in terms of targets, though I'm sure your government is doing all it can to keep them secure. Hell, our one-and-only nuclear plant (for research purposes only) at Lucas Heights was stormed by Greenpeace activists in 2001 (after 11 Sep). Fences are only there to keep the honest people out - those who really want to get in will find a way (think Heathrow Airport recently).
Fortunately down here we have the option of Geothermal power - which I've been on the bandwagon about. For us it's a real option for base-load power generation, despite the amount of Uranium we have. As far as we're concerned, we'll dig up the Uranium so other countries can glow in the dark, while we use the profits to fund better ideas - like geothermal and carbon capture.
Geo-engineering like recycling is good - pouring huge amounts of money into a scheme like a giant mirror in space is pretty stupid, you must admit. Especially when scientists aren't even united on whether we're cooling, warming, both or neither.
How have my posts had similarities with John Ruskin, when I'm the one who you said was in favour of pouring tonnes of steel into the sea bed to create behemoths like tidal generators??
Post new comment