Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

[trish]

"More" is just an adjective that I myself placed so as to modify "sustainable", an ordinary English word that is neither jargon nor political vernacular. In this case one would hope the company would adopt practices that would go further toward sustaining itself as we'll as the environment.

There is enough coal on this planet to sustain our projected rates of energy consumption for the next millennium. There's no need to savage the Arctic in a frantic attempt to get to the last drop of fossil fuel. We can take our time and do it right.

One never knows what the future holds. We may use space elevators to both launch satellites and to drain energy from the Earth's rotation. Elongating the period by nanoseconds could supply the Earth with all the energy it needs. Wind, tidal, solar, fusion, fission, hydro, geo and as of yet undiscovered technologies may eventually take the place of fossil fuels.

It's not a question of ceasing all hydrocarbon activity now or continue full steam ahead. There are in betweens with a continuum of short and long term costs and benefits. No matter what we do there will be costs. Like bears, the value of the human species is relative, but I would still like to see both species continue into the indefinite future.

[Kire89]

I don't see any realistic "in between" scenario where humankind (7070 million people) strives toward a "sustainable" (it's a meaningless word as our endeavours have overshot decades ago) as long as there are easily-recoverable hydrocarbons left.

As for coal, it's dirtier and can't be used to fuel the hundreds of millions of cars or trucks which consume 90% of every barrel of oil produced. There certainly isn't enough high-grade, easily-accessible coal left for a millenium of current or growth-ridden consumption. China has something like 100 billion tons worth left (and is a importer now) and consumes 3 billion tons per annum. Interesting sidenote: despite increasing volumes of coal production in China, the new reserves are of lower quality so a volumetric increase didn't increase the energy (# of BTUs) they got from burning it. High grade, easiest-to-access reserves are nearly always claimed and consumed first because they are the easiest to find and exploit, just ask any current net importer (UK, Germany, China).

[trish]

The one thousand year figure I quoted for the amount of coal left on the planet I remember reading in Richard Muller's, Physics for Future Presidents. Coal is dirtier, true enough, but you have to admit that coal is an alternative to Arctic oil. So is natural gas, and it's cleaner (though the technique of fracking has to be regulated to prevent contamination of fresh water...a resource even more necessary to life than energy to run cars, factories and heat homes). My points are simply 1) when it comes to energy production and consumption there are more than two choices, 2) the sooner begin working on curbing the production of greenhouse gasses, the consequences of climate change might be delayed and ameliorated (had we began to work on alternatives and to curb our production of greenhouse gases in the 80's when we first learned about the ongoing effects on climate, we'd be in better shape now).

I too have a very pessimistic attitude about what we will do. But what we will do is only one path among many.

[Kire89]

Certainly. I like to indulge in contrafactual thought. Besides the alternate realities where I am the only male in a world inhabitated solely by t-girls, I like rumination about a planet earth without cars, the growth-paradigm or sugary food and drinks. Wouldn't that be blissful, serene, inspiring und su weiter?

Alas, it shan't come to pass. Arctic drilling seems to be a much better proposition than fracking (which is hardly a net energy positive endeavour) and an intensified production and consumption of coal, in my mind, but my reflections won't determine or influence the path homo sapiens will take in the slightest.

At this point, whether we stop or not, the average temperature will rise by some number x. This will have devastating effects. There is no prospect in current human affairs of slowing down as long as there is readily available fossil fuels. These are the facts. If only the generations before me actually listened to the Club of Rome. Maybe it was too late even then?

[danthepoetman]

Liberty in the nude... Maybe global warming has its advantages after all...

[Kire89]

Alas, it doesn't. Desertification (less arable land), starvation (famines), drought or extreme downpour (intensified extreme weather in general leading to failed crops) and feedback loops that accelerate global warming (beetles not dying due to lack of cold winters so that the forests of Siberia and Canada succumb, methane being released as a result of less ice, und su weiter).

Interesting times.

[fred41]

Liberty in the nude... Maybe global warming has its advantages after all...

Naaah,...I'm thinking she'd be a helluva lot more Zaftig than that....doubt the pits would be shaved too.

[Ben]

Liberty in the nude... Maybe global warming has its advantages after all...

Ha ha! Nice pic Dan....

[Ben]

Maybe 98 percent of climate scientists are wrong and Rush Limbaugh is right. But what if the 98 percent of climate scientists are right and Rush Limbaugh is wrong....
But, again, maybe we should trust Limbaugh and ignore science and climate scientists...

Climate change set to make America hotter, drier, and more disaster-prone:

http://grist.org/climate-energy/clim...isaster-prone/

Your weatherman probably denies global warming

The good news: People can be persuaded climate change is real. The bad news: TV experts can't.

[trish]

Maybe God revealed all truth to Limbaugh while he was on a oxycontin high. Then again, maybe when he came out of it, Rush got it all screwed up.