The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

From 2003 to 2050, the world's population is projected to grow from 6.4 billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in 2050. But that's too low, because societies that grow richer use more energy. Unless we condemn the world's poor to their present poverty -- and freeze everyone else's living standards -- we need economic growth. With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050.

Just keeping annual greenhouse gas emissions constant means that the world must somehow offset these huge increases. There are two ways: Improve energy efficiency, or shift to energy sources with lower (or no) greenhouse emissions. Intuitively, you sense this is tough. China, for example, builds about one coal-fired power plant a week. Now a new report from the International Energy Agency in Paris shows all the difficulties (the population, economic growth and energy projections cited above come from the report).

The IEA report assumes that existing technologies are rapidly improved and deployed. Vehicle fuel efficiency increases by 40 percent. In electricity generation, the share for coal (the fuel with the most greenhouse gases) shrinks from about 40 percent to about 25 percent -- and much carbon dioxide is captured before going into the atmosphere. Little is captured today. Nuclear energy increases. So do "renewables" (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal); their share of global electricity output rises from 2 percent now to about 15 percent.

Some of these changes seem heroic. They would require tough government regulation, continued technological gains and public acceptance of higher fuel prices. Never mind. Having postulated a crash energy diet, the IEA simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today. The increases vary from 6 percent to 27 percent.

Since 1800 there's been modest global warming. I'm unqualified to judge between those scientists (the majority) who blame man-made greenhouse gases and those (a small minority) who finger natural variations in the global weather system. But if the majority are correct, the IEA report indicates we're now powerless. We can't end annual greenhouse emissions, and once in the atmosphere, the gases seem to linger for decades. So concentration levels rise. They're the villains; they presumably trap the world's heat. They're already about 36 percent higher than in 1800. Even with its program, the IEA says another 45 percent rise may be unavoidable. How much warming this might create is uncertain; so are the consequences.

I draw two conclusions -- one political, one practical.

No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they're "doing something." The result is grandstanding. Consider the Kyoto Protocol. It allowed countries that joined to castigate those that didn't. But it hasn't reduced carbon dioxide emissions (up about 25 percent since 1990), and many signatories didn't adopt tough enough policies to hit their 2008-2012 targets. By some estimates, Europe may overshoot by 15 percent and Japan by 25 percent.

Ambitious U.S. politicians also practice this self-serving hypocrisy. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a global warming program. Gore counts 221 cities that have "ratified" Kyoto. Some pledge to curb their greenhouse emissions. None of these programs will reduce global warming. They're public relations exercises and -- if they impose costs -- are undesirable. (Note: on national security grounds, I favor taxing oil, but the global warming effect would be trivial.) The practical conclusion is that if global warming is a potential calamity, the only salvation is new technology. I once received an e-mail from an engineer. Thorium, he said. I had never heard of thorium. It is, he argued, a nuclear fuel that is more plentiful and safer than uranium without waste disposal problems. It's an exit from the global warming trap. After reading many articles, I gave up trying to decide whether he is correct. But his larger point is correct: Only an aggressive research and development program might find ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it. Perhaps some system could purge the atmosphere of surplus greenhouse gases?

The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

It's all political... THE CLIMATE WON'T AND CAN'T STAY THE SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. We have been in a warming period for the past 10,000 to 12,000 years since the last ice age. How is that possible when the industrial age started 150 years ago?

2. We have had many ice ages and warming periods since the earth was formed. There will be more.

3. How arrogant are we to think the climate should stay the same? It will get warmer or cooler. I'd rather have higher seas than a glacier in Manhattan.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

3. How arrogant are we to think the climate should stay the same? It will get warmer or cooler. I'd rather have higher seas than a glacier in Manhattan.

ya gotta admit, that would be one way to stop the muggings

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Muggings? Damn man, have you even been to Manhattan since the Dinkin years?

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Muggings? Damn man, have you even been to Manhattan since the Dinkin years?

that reminds me of the dinkins donuts skit on snl

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Muggings? Damn man, have you even been to Manhattan since the Dinkin years?

Been norf (north) of 110th st lately?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Muggings? Damn man, have you even been to Manhattan since the Dinkin years?

Been norf (north) of 110th st lately?

Hell no, what am i, suicidal?

(point taken)

[incanada1234 0]

3. How arrogant are we to think the climate should stay the same?

Obviously the genius to ask on that one is Al Gore.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

3. How arrogant are we to think the climate should stay the same?

Obviously the genius to ask on that one is Al Gore.

if al gore would shut up, we'd probably not have global warming

[incanada1234 0]

if al gore would shut up,

Now there's a wonderful thought!

[Nagishkaw 510]

3. How arrogant are we to think the climate should stay the same?

Obviously the genius to ask on that one is Al Gore.

after all, he invented the internet...... I see his movie did wonderfully at the box office, too.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's all political... THE CLIMATE WON'T AND CAN'T STAY THE SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. We have been in a warming period for the past 10,000 to 12,000 years since the last ice age. How is that possible when the industrial age started 150 years ago?

2. We have had many ice ages and warming periods since the earth was formed. There will be more.

3. How arrogant are we to think the climate should stay the same? It will get warmer or cooler. I'd rather have higher seas than a glacier in Manhattan.

Oye! Seriously, do people spend this much time being skeptical over what their doctors tell them? At some point, you've got to have a little faith in those who dedicate their lives to the sciences. These anecdotal propositions as to why one is skeptical about the science behind global warming is silly.

I've proposed this question in another thread that Agent Smith posted on Global Warming, but I don't think anyone answered: What is the criteria by which you accept the expert opinion of others? If you have 100 experts all saying the same thing and 12 dissenting, what side do you tend to lean towards? Skepticism is part of human nature, which those who stand to lose the most (Big Oil) should public policy be shaped by these scientist's expertise are well aware of that. Just get enough doubt in people's minds and you completely dismantled any real discussion about Global Warming, let alone talking about real solutions where economies will not only survive, but thrive.

Anyone? Buehler? Buehler?

[cmartyn 0]

Well, even if the earth isnt warming, we should still be conserving as much as possible. The real issue to me is why I'm suposed to curtail my driving yet Airlines are being given billion dollar subsidies. In this environment every drop I conserve just leaves more for somebody else. I dunno. Im going to start hoarding it soon. Did a big hole in the backyard and bury a tanker in there. Ill be paying 3 bucks per from now until 2050.

To answer your question though. I dont think it is a matter of credentials. Everyone has a bias.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

To answer your question though. I dont think it is a matter of credentials. Everyone has a bias.

So when you go to your doctor and he runs some tests and then tells you that you may have a specific disease and that he wants to begin critical treatment right away, you're going to do what? You'll get a second and perhaps a third opinion, but you're not going to look smug at your doctor and try to argue with him over the merits of his expertise. Do you see what I mean? We put a lot of faith into the expertise of professionals (auto mechanics for instance) in our daily lives without question. That's why so much skepticism is suspicious of being orchestrated by those who stand to lose greatly (Big Oil) should these experts be correct. Aside from any possible environmental benefits from reducing our use of fossil fuels, there are numerous geo-political advantages. You'd be fool not to recognize how much Big Oil has a stranglehold on our policies.

When NASA launches the space shuttle, does anyone here question whether the science behind it is correct or even 'biased'?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Steven,

Good points, all. Although I wouldn't use auto mechanics as an example. Most people distrust them and they frequently do not speak in one voice

That said, the original article does not even address whether warming exists. It addresses the technical aspects of the problem and points out how the political grandstanding on the issue drowns out any substantive discussion of the engineering aspects of global warming.

IMO the author is right in saying that the 'solution' to warming will not be political, it will be technical.