So listening to Science Friday’s podcast today, one of the topics was Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute, an organization dedicated to preventing us from screwing up our planet any more than it already is. He’s come out with the latest version of his book, the 3rd edition of his book called, appropriately, “Plan B 3.0”. In it, he discusses the usual energy crisis, but he also carries it further, describing water wars, the effects of biofuels on food prices, etc. Brown also discusses some things that can be done to rectify these problems. It’s not terribly upbeat, however, as the fixes are rather more politically radical than anything we Americans have heard.
Ok, so it’s not SF, but the speculation is pretty good, and if it doesn’t motivate you to do something, it might just plant the seed for an entertaining story. Check out the book here, the first chapter or so is available free now, and the whole book will be released free later this week. Now that’s a promotional offer!
(image via EPI’s website)
Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Insitute?
I don’t need to read the book, its more of the same thing he has been saying since the 70’s.
Heck, who knows, even a broken clock is right twice a day, as the saying goes.
Sheesh.
I think stuff like this is basically true. This message is perfectly congruent with how I like to see it. It’s a great black & white vision.
Either humanity grows a collective brain and decission-making tool (which would be equivalent to a global government, one way or another). If that happens, the world will probably make it, humanity will grow beyond the flesh human, transcend poverty, disease, aging and death, there will be a singularity and posthumanity will travel to the stars.
If we don’t, well, this will probably be the last human civilization as well as generation, humanity will start dying one human after another in an ever faster progressive rate, and in a few decades, by the time I am old and very bored, humanity will be irreversibly on the road to extinction and probably 99% of all animal and plants species have become extinct, and the earth will be a barren and steaming wasteland for half a million years. I am fine with that latter scenario too – when I die, the world dies with me, give or take a few decades. It’s all used up in a nice party. Great!
Both very emotionally satisfying. Good new. I like clarity.
I think I’d rather say “It’s not terribly upbeat, however, as the fixes are rather more radically political…”
Much of it seems to be up as pdf, so I’ll take a look.
“Early Signs of Decline” – pretty much what we’ve seen over the last thousand years.
“The Response”: “Stabilizing Population” – We go first, let the 3rd world countries keep multiplying.
“Raising Energy Efficiency”: “Banning the Bulb” – switch to CFLs. Never mind that if they break while lit, you get a bit of mercury vapor in the air. I see that nuclear power is still an Instrument of Satan for these guys.
The term “climate change” appears throughout. It’s camoflaged a bit in the chapter heading “Rising Temperatures and Rising Seas”. These guys have obviously seen Al Gore’s slide show. “… the sea level will rise 39 feet…” Pfui. It’s more like 39 cm.
Brown has an article online where he lambastes Lomborg. There is, of course, no mention of the fact that the Danish Academy of Sciences was forced to withdraw its criticism of Lomborg.
All in all, just the usual “the sky is falling, and unless we all go back to living in mud huts, the world is going to boil over”.
Yes, exactly, zzmike.
Move along, there is nothing new to see here.
C’mon guys, I thought we attracted a more verbose and thoughtful crowd here. Strawmen and already-refuted arguments aren’t going to do much here.
““Early Signs of Decline” – pretty much what we’ve seen over the last thousand years.” – A good read is Jared Diamond’s “Collapse.” It’s a good description of how we pick a time of plenty and operate as though it’ll never end (eg, American Southwest, sheep farming in Australia).
““The Response”: “Stabilizing Population” – We go first, let the 3rd world countries keep multiplying.” – Um, we’re kind doing it already, as are nearly all other developed nations. Nobody I’ve seen has said to let other countries multiply. Strawmen = bad.
““Raising Energy Efficiency”: “Banning the Bulb” – switch to CFLs. Never mind that if they break while lit, you get a bit of mercury vapor in the air. I see that nuclear power is still an Instrument of Satan for these guys.” – In a normal light bulb’s life, you’ll produce more mercury if it’s powered by coal than by dropping a CFL. See: http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/home_journal_news/4217864.html
“The term “climate change” appears throughout. It’s camoflaged a bit in the chapter heading “Rising Temperatures and Rising Seas”. These guys have obviously seen Al Gore’s slide show. “… the sea level will rise 39 feet…” Pfui. It’s more like 39 cm.” – Do you really deny climate change? Wow. Or are you referring to that kerfluffle about the Scandinavian geologist who claims the NPCC stats are wrong?
As for Lomborg, I’m sure Brown has issues with him, as do most scientists who think climate change is a significant factor. Keep in mind, from your previous paragraph, that Lomborg doesn’t think climate change won’t happen, he just argues it won’t be all that bad.
As for the ‘mud huts’ statement, one of the reasons we blog about stuff here at Futurismic is to get ourselves more up to date on techs that will allow us to have our cake and eat it too – or to live a high-tech lifestyle without living in mud huts.
I’m all for having and eating cake, and living in marble palaces. But that’s not what the climate-change gurus want. They want cutbacks and restrictions. They want global taxes (by which they mean taxes on developed countries). One of their champions insists that airline travel is something we can all do without. And who needs cars when there’s plenty of mass transit?
I could be more receptive to their claims had not Al Gore muddied the waters with his dismal slide show. He repeated the “39 foot” claim. He repeated the infamous Oreskes claim (that “the vast majority of scientists agree with AGW”).
I agree with you that technology can do more to supply our needs. But if it keeps on being restricted by environmentalists, nothing’s going to happen. Nuclear plants, like pebble-bed reactors, could supply safe, reliable power. There hasn’t been a gasoline refinery built in this country since 1976 (Louisiana). And we shouldn’t forget that we’ve had since the 1970s (remember gas lines?) to do something about our dependence on foreign oil.
Nuclear power? God forbid. Wind power? Certainly not – they kill birds (or if you live in a certain part of Massachussetts, they spoil the view).
“Do you really deny climate change? Wow.” What I deny – for simple lack of objective proof – is AGW. The climate has been changing for millennia, and it will keep on changing. The major driver is most likely the Sun – not SUVs.
There are things we’ve done wrong – pollution in Tokyo and China is rampant – but to say that mere Man has changed the global climate is to think too highly of ourselves. Where there’s too much smog is a local problem, and should be solved at a local level. Edinburgh and Glasgow had a severe smog problem in the 1800s, and London in the 1950s.
The mercury-producing coal plant figures may be accurate, but what % of our plants run on coal vs “other”? The DoE says for 2000, 43% coal, 19% gas, 14% nuclear (75% so far), 12% renewable (hydroelectric &c). Mercury can be contained at the plant. Personally, I’m not worried about the mercury content of CFLs. It’s minute, and when they’re off, it’s metallic.
Here’s an EPA chart of mercury emissions, 2001:
Mercury deposition in the uS
The contribution from power plants is less than 10% of the total. The largest fraction comes from “sources outside the US and Canada”. I couldn’t find where they identified those sources, but this chart
1999 Global Mercury Emissions
shows that US power plants contribute 1%; the US total is 3%.
If you’re intersted in avoiding “already-refuted arguments”, then you’ll have to ignore people like Al Gore and Lester Brown.
“I’m all for having and eating cake, and living in marble palaces. But that’s not what the climate-change gurus want. They want cutbacks and restrictions. They want global taxes (by which they mean taxes on developed countries). One of their champions insists that airline travel is something we can all do without. And who needs cars when there’s plenty of mass transit?”
Strawmen. Please stop.
“…but to say that mere Man has changed the global climate is to think too highly of ourselves.”
Except it’s not. No one is arguing that the climate has never changed and it’s just us humans doing it. What people are arguing is that the change is happening more rapidly than ever before (minus cataclysmic disasters like asteroids).
As far as nuclear, I’m all for it. I even wrote about it here. But it has to actually be done, and done right. Not just handing out subsidies to the power companies. It’s gotta be viable.
As for mercury, read the article. Current US mercury output is equated to around 9 billion CFLs. If you believe Popular Mechanics, we’re not in any danger. Wikipedia has tips on how to deal with breaking a bulb.
I believe I’m getting out of the main area of futurismic, so I won’t belabor the points. Not that I admit that I’m wrong, just that there are better venues for this discussion.
I’ll leave with an article from Science and Public Policy Institute:
What Greenhouse Warming?
One point that many people overlook (me, too), is that water vapor is a significant “greenhouse gas”.
Among the arguments of the paper is
“The contrast between the five computer models’ predicted signature of greenhouse warming and the Hadley Centre’s plot of observed decadal rates of change in temperature could not be starker. This astonishing result is explicitly confirmed by the UN’s 2007 assessment report, which describes the near-total absence of its own predicted “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic greenhouse warming in the observed temperature record, but apparently without appreciating its significance –…
…..
Applying Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation for the discrepancy between theoretical modeling and real-world observation is that the models on which the case for alarm about climate change are based are very substantially overestimating the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse warming on global temperatures. The Climate Change Science Program, however, prefers to assume that it is observation, rather than theory, that is deficient. ”
(I’m reminded of the old saying, “Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?”.)
Here is as good a place as any for the debate, ZZ, as long as it *is* a debate and not a shouting match, so don’t run off on our account.
In response, I’d point out that you only need go as far as Wikipedia to discover the SPPI may not be all it claims to be:
Perhaps they are right. But that’s not the best way to maintain credibility as a neutral source, is it?
Thanks for the debate, though, ZZMike. It’s good to be challenged as to ideas. Speaking of which, I came across this link about how CFLs may not be all that great, though not for the reasons you mentioned earlier: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4281/
Anyways, I expect you to keep me honest, and I’ll do the same for you 🙂 The future’s the future, it’s all we’ve got, eh?