Climate Change

I'm listening to the most recent Intelligence Squared Podcast, and it's about Climate Change.

I'm having some thoughts.



I don't like Climate Change.

It's not that I don't want it to happen, or that it's inexorably bad. I'm not sure of a lot of the facts about it. The problem isn't so much that the only "science" against it is funded by BIG OIL. Neither is it, that people are causing it. All of that is true enough, in it's way. My problem with it isn't even on whether it's happening. It is. (Over the past century the temperature of the entire planet has risen more than half a degree celsius.)

My problem is with what it means, what we can do to actually help, and the general eco-freak uprising surrounding the issue.

Listen to the debate on I^2. (The motion was "Major Reductions in Carbon Emissions Are Not Worth the Money.") The side against the motion says reducing Carbon Emissions will save the world. And they provide a lot of unsourced, vaguely sourced, or unapologetically anecdotal evidence.

The side against says, basically, the opposite; and they "prove" it using the same style.

What it comes down to is money. Let's say it would take 3-4% of the entire world's GDP to reduce carbon emissions by 30% in 20 years. First, understand these numbers do not reflect actual figures and estimates- those are more like 3-4% for less than 15% reduction. Second- and here's my main point- understand what 3-4% of the entire world's GDP actually means.

Here's where you should probably start: The combined net worth of the 25 million most wealthy people in the world, is equal to the combined net worth of the lowest 2 Billion [according to the BBC]. That's, roughly, 100 to 1. If we subtract 3-4% of wealth from going towards providing energy, groceries, wages, etc etc; where does it come from?

Either, it comes from everybody equally. Or, as it usually does: The large majority comes from the wealthy. But the rest comes from the poor.

The wealthy who could easily continue to be extravagant with 3-4% less; and the poor, who would still be barely living if their wealth were increased by 3-4%. 3% of 100 dollars is 3 dollars. 3% of a million is 30,000.

The side that says Carbon Emissions should be reduced, regardless of the costs, don't deny that even if they were reduced the climate would continue to change. No one is talking about stopping what's happened/happening/going to happen. However, the side that wants to curb Carbon, is dismissive of the expenditures required. Calling it "investments".

How are these "investments" different from simple costs? It's hard to pin-down the actual differences. Seeing as any difference is just supposition, it's unlikely we'd ever be able to fully tell if such expenditures were costs or investments, until after we'd made them. Remember the huge infrastructure spending of the New Deal, that helped to end the Great Depression? Well, according to Austrian School Economists, that prolonged the depression. (Kensians disagree.)

See how this is a bit more complicated than we're sometimes led to believe?

But, again, the point is the money. Take 3% away from a poor subsistence farmer in Africa, or South America, or Asia; and that could very well mean the death/starvation of the farmer. Okay, so we hit the really rich harder and we take away 1% from the poor.

Sure, that sounds good; until you start thinking about how these thing really would/will happen. It's going to be a rise in energy costs. Which means EVERYTHING, that requires any energy, becomes more expensive- especially consumables (i.e. food).

The people who want these dramatic sums of money used for their purposes- nobel as they may be- really don't seem to be in touch with the reality of people who struggle, not from paycheck to paycheck because they spend too much at the MacDonald's or "down at the pub", but from meal to meal because they don't have enough money to properly feed themselves. {Here's a tidbit I like to reference: it's only been since, roughly, the 1970s, that people in rural America could be accurately assumed to have enough to eat to be getting proper daily nutrition. Look it up.}

China wants less pollution in their cities, yet they need more power. So, they keep building coal plants, fund "clean coal" (which isn't), and research how to manipulate the weather to keep the coal smoke out of heavily populated areas. They also want to make some nuclear plants; but it takes highly educated workers to run nuclear facilities. People capable of problem solving on the fly. That sort of independent, intelligent, worker isn't conducive to the type of government currently running China. And the Chinese aren't stupid, they saw Russia's failures with nuclear- Chernobyl was due in no small part to the lack of adequate training and intelligence on the part of plant workers. (They were picking up radioactive waste with their hands and throwing it back into the exploded reactor core, all while wearing rubber chemical suits. These were not sophisticated nuclear physicists.)

So what will China do? They have a lot of coal. Coal is incredibly cheap, and they have the ability, supplies, and personnel to make more coal power plants. I'm betting they don't stop.

What about Ethiopia, Nigeria, Kenya, Sudan, Columbia, Venezuela, Peru, Mexico? How many of those countries have the people, money, or ability to the design, build, and safely run nuclear power plants?

And let's face it: Nuclear is the only option. Solar, wind, tidal... it's all intermittent. Hydroelectric is an option- but not for everybody, everywhere; and even when it is viable, it's got its own environmental impacts. The "renewables" are all HUGELY inefficient, expensive, and- worse- there's no reliable, clean, efficient way of storing the power they produce that isn't immediately used.

Nigeria, Venezuela, China.. they're not moving away from coal and petroleum any time soon. Neither is Russia. Neither are we.

Try to force it on them, and it'll get passed onto their poorest, their weakest, and their most vulnerable if they don't just laugh and continue doing what they want, regardless.

Try to only handle it ourselves, and it'll lead to the same untenable situation.

Imagine 50 years later, when the US is completely run on nuclear (or other clean, renewable energy), but Africa, Asia, and South America have made 2 coal burning power plants for every 1 we shut down. If you don't think it's possible, go find the numbers of coal power plants China is expected to build (or has announced it will build) over the next ten years.

Energy costs aren't taxes; but they have the same effect- they hurt the poorest the most. Raise the price of bread, milk, or rice by a dollar; and watch the fallout. Chances are Bill Gates won't starve to death, but children in sub-Saharan Africa are a different story.

There's a contempt, from the people who want everything done, as soon as possible, about global warming for the people who oppose their proposals. I can understand it, I feel the same way about anyone who tries to shine the light of reality on my own personal love of manned space exploration and colonization.

Just like I see a time of space stations, bases in the clouds of Neptune, and ships that travel hundreds of thousands of miles a day, as utopic (if not a true utopia); they see a time of clean energy and no global warming as idyllic. "Everything would be perfect, if only..."

It's bullshit, of course. Neither my dream nor theirs will result in anything but different forms of angst, depredation, and strife.

The only difference is, in my dream, if Earth were to suddenly- unexpectedly- blow up, all of humanity wouldn't perish in the blast.

My point is, the proactive responders to global warming are fooling themselves. They want a fundamental change, across the spectrum, and they're willing to go to any ends, regardless of how much they have to ignore, to get what they want because they think it will make the world better for their kids, or their kids' kids.

I have no idea how to save the planet from this "menace". My knee-jerk reaction is "get a new planet, and we've got a spare should one get ruined"; but that's not likely to happen. Reducing carbon emissions, so that everything gets more expensive, and those at the bottom die off a little more... it's not going to change anything.

It's the difference between keeping Terry Schiavo alive, or pulling the plug: Either way she dies, the only question is dignity.

I mean, in reality, how often do huge, fundamental changes, across the spectrum, actually happen. And when they do, how long does it take before we all realize that there are new/other problems the change didn't solve?