Nice lightning rod of a topic, Flash. It’s nice to see so many people voice their opinions, as opposed to the two-person back-and-forth we had going on the gas prices thread.
This is one of my favorite topics, but I’m going to try to summon the Herculean willpower to refrain from joining the debate over how much, if any, contribution mankind’s CO2 emissions are really making to the warming trend we’re in the midst of. Suffice it to say that the real truth probably lies somewhere between Jerry Falwell’s assertion that global warming is a myth, and Ted Turner’s prognostication that we will be reduced to cannibalism within 30 years as our planet turns into a raging ball of fire.
Instead, I’d like to say for the sake of argument that we are contributing in a big way to global warming, and focus on what, if anything, can be done about it. The huge challenge is that CO2, and other IR absorbers, are emitted from so many sources, the majority of which are things that are extremely difficult to do anything about. No matter how many wind farms or solar arrays the wealthier countries install, or how many Americans hang their clothes to dry rather than using their driers, the fact that China is bringing on line a new coal fired power plant every week, with countries like India, Russia, Brazil, and eventually others in Asia and South America, and ultimately Africa and the Middle East, likely to follow suit, seems to make the efforts of the most vocal global warming crusaders pretty futile.
And I reject the tired notion that mankind’s effort to improve our collective quality of life through technological progress and industrialization is somehow evil. There’s nothing more humane than providing the inhabitants of this planet with the warmth, comfort, and convenience that affordable electricity provides. The fact that by a huge margin, the burning of fossil fuels is the cheapest way to generate this vital commodity, means that increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere are pretty much a fact of life.
But let’s say we miraculously come to a global agreement, INCLUDING the developing countries, to convert to non-fossil fuel based electricity generation and transportation (though I’d like to see someone try to figure out how to run a 747 on a lithium ion battery). Doing this is so contrary to natural market forces that it will require massive amounts of money (many trillions of dollars from the reports I’ve seen) in the form of subsidies. Where’s all this money going to come from? And I don’t buy (excuse the pun) into the idea that spending this money now will somehow pay off in the long run, because there are likely as many beneficiaries from a warming world as there are victims. Most of the governments of the world’s wealthier nations are already deep in debt, thanks to the ever-pervasive notion that it’s the role of government to provide for peoples’ every conceivable need (and our own misguided and hugely expensive invasion of Iraq hasn’t helped – see, I’m trying to stay politically balanced here). I just don’t see how we could pull this off, without printing massive amounts of currency, which, even if it saves us from the evils of CO2, would leave us with a world not worth living in.
Personally, I agree with John Stossel that, given the uncertainties of the magnitude of mankind’s contribution to global warming, our resources would be better spent continuing to carefully monitor global temperature, atmospheric CO2 concentration, sea levels, etc., and then plan for dealing with the consequences of the present warming trend, assuming it continues. I know that sounds somewhat defeatist, but I’m afraid it’s simply based in realism. I lose a lot more sleep over the temperature of my 968’s coolant than that of our planet. But then, I’ve always been a glass-half-full kind of guy (although the water in the glass is getting pretty darn dirty, with my head being stuck so far in the sand and all…)
