When Heat Kills: Global Warming As Public Health Threat

[GhostWriter16]

Oh we should do something. Research technology

 

[History_Buff]

What's the deal with fission?

It's pretty great, the waste is completely manageable, much less problematic than the waste of a few decades ago, and when policed properly, you can be sure people aren't making weapons from it.

But people don't go for it because reasons.

I saw something about us being able to stop global warming. I don't totally understand why we wouldn't do it then.

Honestly, your post actually CONFIRMS my thoughts that something is fishy about the whole thing. I've got no qualms about "Making small sacrifices" but I think some environmentalists take it altogether too far, and seemingly for no reason considering tech will "probably" get us out of it. Since that is probably the case, I see no reason to worry excessively.

About stopping global warming: google Geo-Engineering. You essentially get a bunch of sulfur-based molecules, and pour it into the upper atmosphere. It'll reflect light, increasing albedo, and thus slowing or reversing warming. But there are extremely good reasons not to do it; namely, we have no frakking idea what else it will do. Our other experience with a sulfur filled atmosphere is acid raid. That would not be worth it. That also shouldn't happen, because it's too high up, but it's a possibility, and we don't know what the other ones are. Much better idea to make harder sacrifices, rather than take the quick, cheap, and dirty way out.

Well those small sacrifices matter more to different people. But the gist of it is that we (we meaning the Global North) slash emissions. Slash them hard. That means either a strong carbon tax, or a well enforced cap and trade system. We might get China and India on board, we might not, but it's not fair to wait for them, and we can't afford to anyway. They'll join in later anyway; China might be leading already.

Slashing emissions means less of everything, but it really isn't that bad. 1-3% GDP growth over a century or so. Fossil fuels gets much more expensive (like, much more), so North American cities get much denser, we build our homes better, millions of vehicles get replaced or retrofitted, we fly less, the power generation grid is all but replaced, stuff like that. In many cases, it's just a faster version of the trends that are already happening, and as an upside, it'll get North America and Europe off it's foreign oil dependency. But it will require fairly heavy handed government intervention, which many people (somewhat inexplicably) are not alright with. Corporate interests certainly won't like it, since it a short term profit cutback. Voters don't like it because 'Dey-Took-Er-Gas!'

Oh we should do something. Research technology

We have been, but not by enough. And people who shall remain unnamed complain when even minor ventures like Solyndra and friends go south. Even when we get it, that technology will mean sacrificing short term growth for long term stability, and generally not favor those who are currently wealthy and powerful. Unless someone gets a fusion reactor running before 2015, there will be no silver bullet, and even then it's no sure thing.

Well, I'm somewhat biased by the "God is in control" thing, but I'm trying not to bring that into it

The same god who trusted us with stewardship over the Earth and it's creatures, and doesn't hesitate to destroy us wholesale when we anger him?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Slashing emissions means less of everything, but it really isn't that bad. 1-3% GDP growth over a century or so. Fossil fuels gets much more expensive (like, much more), so North American cities get much denser, we build our homes better, millions of vehicles get replaced or retrofitted, we fly less, the power generation grid is all but replaced, stuff like that. In many cases, it's just a faster version of the trends that are already happening, and as an upside, it'll get North America and Europe off it's foreign oil dependency. But it will require fairly heavy handed government intervention, which many people (somewhat inexplicably) are not alright with. Corporate interests certainly won't like it, since it a short term profit cutback. Voters don't like it because 'Dey-Took-Er-Gas!'

I certainly don't like it. What this comes down to is "Force people to make sacrifices because we don't know whether we'll have a solution to something that isn't going to be a problem for two generations." I don't agree with it. Then again, considering the fact that technology research gets faster all the time, I suspect we won't have an issue in 2060. If we do, we can try the solution that you mentioned. Do they have any odds on potential side effects? Because I see no reason it wouldn't work fine. I mean, I'm not just saying "Do it now", we can wait until it becomes a problem, and hopefully we'll be able to research our way out of the problem (Assuming that current science is even accurate on the dangers, which I do not know whether or not this is certain.)

I guess I'm just being optimistic but I do not believe this is going to be a huge problem.

We have been, but not by enough. And people who shall remain unnamed complain when even minor ventures like Solyndra and friends go south. Even when we get it, that technology will mean sacrificing short term growth for long term stability, and generally not favor those who are currently wealthy and powerful. Unless someone gets a fusion reactor running before 2015, there will be no silver bullet, and even then it's no sure thing.

Why is 2015 significant here?

The same god who trusted us with stewardship over the Earth and it's creatures, and doesn't hesitate to destroy us wholesale when we anger him?

Well, the next time he will destroy the world has already been set in stone and its going to happen when its going to happen, at the end of Revelation That said, I fully agree with you that that should NOT have anything to do with our global warming policy. After all, we may survive but it may still suck.

 

[Crezth]

"Technology will save our current rich world lifestyle without us doing anything" is magical thinking.

CAPITALISM!

There's no reason to assume that any of these problems are going to go away or be irrelevant from a thermodynamics perspective. It's frankly irresponsible to handwave it away because hurr durr technology is advanced guys

edit: Oh, and important to note that these alleged technologists who will usher in this era of anti-scarcity and free energy and no global environmental catastrophe are the same people who are right now telling you that there's a problem. These are the people who gave you electricity and computers and cars and reactors and moon landings and television and phones and modern medicine. Iggy, for instance, is a highly competent scientist - you know, those people we have to thank for all of modern society - and he knows what he's talking about. Global warming is a problem.

 

[Murky]

Just having access to advanced technology isn't enough. We have implement it on a large enough scale to matter.

We could put people on Mars and still lose the battle against climate change at home.

 

[Zelig]

I certainly don't like it. What this comes down to is "Force people to make sacrifices because we don't know whether we'll have a solution to something that isn't going to be a problem for two generations." I don't agree with it. Then again, considering the fact that technology research gets faster all the time, I suspect we won't have an issue in 2060. If we do, we can try the solution that you mentioned. Do they have any odds on potential side effects? Because I see no reason it wouldn't work fine. I mean, I'm not just saying "Do it now", we can wait until it becomes a problem, and hopefully we'll be able to research our way out of the problem (Assuming that current science is even accurate on the dangers, which I do not know whether or not this is certain.)

This is completely backwards.

I like this approach to climate change: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/taleb08/taleb08.1_index.html

 

[ParkCungHee]

The thing that always impresses me is the multitude of contradictory positions that the anti-global-warming crowd can maintain at the same time.

They don't believe that humans are capable of controlling the environment. They believe the environment changing is a good thing. But if that wasn't a good thing, humans could simply control the environment through our amazing technology.

 

[Arwon]

Just having access to advanced technology isn't enough. We have implement it on a large enough scale to matter.

We could put people on Mars and still lose the battle against climate change at home.

This is certainly true. Wind and solar PV are mature and commercial enough for massive rollout but you need capital and supportive politics to do that.

Technology is not ever independent of political economy.

 

[History_Buff]

I certainly don't like it. What this comes down to is "Force people to make sacrifices because we don't know whether we'll have a solution to something that isn't going to be a problem for two generations." I don't agree with it. Then again, considering the fact that technology research gets faster all the time, I suspect we won't have an issue in 2060. If we do, we can try the solution that you mentioned.

I never said force. I said heavy handed. You want to manufacture methane and then pump it directly into the upper atmosphere, that's your business. But I'll expect you to pay for the costs you're imposing on everyone else. It's called an externality.

That, and we force people to do stuff like this all the time. Back when acid rain was a problem, you had people arguing that the problem would fix itself automagically with time. Instead, we just got serious and made them stop emitting so much sulfur. And it worked great. Similar story with CFCs. No reason to think the same approach wouldn't work again.

Do they have any odds on potential side effects? Because I see no reason it wouldn't work fine. I mean, I'm not just saying "Do it now", we can wait until it becomes a problem, and hopefully we'll be able to research our way out of the problem (Assuming that current science is even accurate on the dangers, which I do not know whether or not this is certain.)

I'm sure they do. Look up David Keith; he used to teach at my alma mater, before leaving for Harvard because the U of Calgary is something of an intellectual hellhole on the whole 'climate science' front.

Re; the bolded: nobody cares what you think. You only heard of this idea like two hours ago, and clearly have zero understanding of the risks involved. I'm not saying that I understand them either, but I can respect that the very people who came up with the idea don't think it's a very good one.

I guess I'm just being optimistic but I do not believe this is going to be a huge problem.

Wildly optimistic. Comically so. Munich agreement optimistic. Seriously, go read some IPCC reports. And those guys go out of their way to be overly conservative. It is a big frakking deal. Defining problem of the next two generations probably. The way the last two generations talk about the Cold War.

Why is 2015 significant here?

It's not, I made it up. But we need to have emissions down by about 2020 or so, 2050 at the latest (say scientists). Even if we had the technology now, it's going to take us a long time to switch over to it.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Wildly optimistic. Comically so. Munich agreement optimistic.

In all fairness, the people involved in the Munich agreement knew the risks and the likelihood of a peace lasting. Except for the Italians, but nobody cares about them.