Thursday, February 19, 2009

The Most Dangerous Man on the Planet

No. Not Osama bin Laden. Not Bush/Cheney either -- not anymore, at least.

The envelope, please. And our winner is:

Al Gore

Any serious attempt to counter the effects of global warming will have serious consequences, including drastic increases in the price of energy. And the consequences of such increases could be far more devastating than anything global warming might (and I must emphasize the word "might") do.

I think the terms of the whole debate need to be reconsidered, because the real issue is not whether or not g. w. is caused by nature or by humans -- the "mea culpa" factor -- but whether or not we can actually do anything about it that won't be worse than the perceived threat itself.

Sure, it looks very much like g. w. is the result of human activity over the last century and a half. If we want to blame ourselves we have good reason. But the mistakes of the past were made precisely because we were reacting to certain perceived problems and ignoring others, which is exactly what we may be doing now.

A drastic increase in the price of energy worldwide -- and the enormous pressures that would have on the most vulnerable among us on the planet, including not only the possibility that many now living on the margins could actually freeze and/or starve to death but also the huge rise in unemployment that would result -- would in itself be a major disaster, possibly of epic proportions. There has already been a serious food shortage precipitated by short sighted efforts to produce Ethanol. The diversion of farmers and farmland to the production of this and other biofuels has been disastrous, seriously raising the price of certain essential foods for many of the most vulnerable people in the world. Biofuels of this type are clearly NOT the answer. Biofuels of some other type might be -- eventually. But the rush to make drastic changes based on a panic induced by Al Gore in chicken-little mode is not the way to solve the problem.

I'm not saying there is no problem, nor would I claim that certain matters don't deserve our urgent attention. Pollution of our air and water is certainly an urgent problem. Development of energy sources to replace fossil fuels, which will eventually run out, is also a serious problem -- though at the moment less urgent. But the notion, fostered by Gore and the "scientists" foolishly supporting him, that we absolutely must drop everything and concentrate on eliminating any and all carbon producing power sources NOW before it is TOO LATE is NOT the answer. I'll add that the scientists supporting Gore's position are primarily geologists, meteorologists, etc., but not economists. They may be qualified to evaluate the question of whether or not the Earth is getting warmer, if this is caused by humans or not, and whether carbon is the culprit. But they are not in a position to evaluate what impact any effort to drastically change course, in an effort to reverse a trend that is probably irreversible in any case, will have on our economy -- and the lives of the billions of people now struggling to survive on the planet.

Even if we were to somehow stop the production of greenhouse gases tomorrow, that would not bring back the melted glaciers - and the ones now melting would continue to melt, meaning the seas would continue to rise, regardless. Nothing we can do now can prevent some really drastic things from happening climatewise over the next 100 to 200 years. But an over-reaction to this perceived problem is almost guaranteed to produce a man made disaster we'd have to face in the immediate future.

The good news about g. w. is that it is a very slow, very gradual process we can prepare for. There are a great many things we can do over the next 50 years or so, to relocate people, build dikes (the Dutch did it, why not the New Yorkers or the Florideans), etc. If certain parts of the world will become uninhabitable, others (such as large areas of Canada, Greenland, etc.) will move in the opposite direction. The United States opened up the west via the homestead act -- Canada could do the same with its vast and largely uninhabited northern territories, due, apparently, for a major warmup.

The ONLY way to effectively start to bring down the level of greenhouse gases in the forseeable future is to go whole hog with nuclear power. All sorts of people who would have never dreamed of advocating such a move are now considering it. And, given time, maybe it's possible that we could some day find a way to build such plants in a truly fail-safe manner. But Al Gore insists we have no time and have to act NOW! True, he's not calling for nuclear power as a solution. But more and more people are starting to take it very seriously, since it appears to be the only viable option if we want to turn things around on a dime, as Gore insists we absolutely MUST do.

Currently the old and very dangerous Indian Point nuclear power plant, dangerously near New York City is being looked at, since it is due for re-commisioning. In a world without all the hysteria invoked by Al Gore, it would probably be decommisioned in the interests of safety, and some sort of coal-fired technology considered as an alternative. In the present climate, however, that's not likely to happen. All indications are that the old plant will be recommisioned despite the very real dangers of a serious accident. And if there is a serious Chernobyl type breakdown there, the lives of millions could be effectively destroyed, a consequence far worse than anything global warming would do for the next 50 years at least.

Humankind has adapted in all sorts of ways to all sorts of environmental challenges and as I see it we have a very good chance of adapting to this one -- especially because it is coming at us with all the speed and alacrity of a Galapagos tortoise. It's huge -- but slow. We do have world enough and time to deal with it. We would NOT have world enough and time to deal with the sort of crisis that would be produced by serious increases in the cost of energy and food or a major accident at a nuclear power plant.

Don't get me wrong. We are probably responsible for global warming. But the lesson to be learned from that is: less hubris, less effort to bend mother nature to our will. More common sense, more of an effort to look ahead, calmly assess what we are faced with -- and deal with it.

In the introduction to his NY Times Blog, dotearth, Andrew Revkin, a strong Gore supporter, warns us that "By 2050 or so, the world population is expected to reach nine billion, essentially adding two Chinas to the number of people alive today." The implication being that unless we do something now about global warming, the planet will not be able to sustain a population of this size. This projection is presented as though it were inevitable and irreversible. It is not. Like Global Warming, it is the result of human actions, but unlike Global Warming, effective action CAN be taken to ameliorate it. Yet, for reasons that are political, ideological, what have you, but mainly thanks to the efforts of Al Gore, nothing is being said about this population explosion, and no serious largescale attempts (outside of China) are being made to forestall it -- instead, all eyes are on Global Warming.

No matter how effective we might be in eliminating carbon from the atmosphere, the effects of that might not be meaningful for another 100 years, at least. Meanwhile, the sort of extreme efforts needed to reverse the trend could have devastating effects on human life in the next 10 to 20 years, by diverting attention and funding away from much more urgent concerns — such as the uncontrolled population crisis.

Consider this. If we were to find a way to feed everyone on earth and cure all their illnesses, and did nothing to control population expansion, then our efforts would have been in vain, because within a generation we would have at least quadrupled the number of mouths to feed. This is the problem we should be focusing on, because it is the size of the Earth's population and its alarming growth that is far and away the most serious problem to be faced in the years to come.

As I see it, Global Warming is for real, but it is also so difficult to control and so costly, that any serious effort to ameliorate it in any meaningful way could literally wreck the world economy, with devastating consequences for hundreds of millions of people in the poorest areas.

On the other hand, an all out effort to control population expansion could be dramatically successful with far less risk and cost. If world population could be brought under control, the effects of global warming would be, as as Revkin suggests, far less drastic.

What Gore and his followers have forgotten is an important concept called “ecology” — which ought not be understood as limited to the “natural” environment alone. What ecology teaches us is that a great many factors must be taken into consideration when planning, because certain things have a way of affecting certain other things, and in ways that are often very difficult to predict. There is a balance in nature, true. But there is also, and now especially, a balance between the “natural” environment — and the human environment, including something usually referred to as “the economy” (stupid!). If we march full steam ahead to “fix” the one, and neglect the impact of our actions on the other — we could be producing a man-made disaster far greater — and more immediate — than the many environmental crises (global warming is only one) we’ve already produced.

8 comments:

  1. No. The way to go is to drastically limit consumption (and therefore production), at least where there is excess of it, distributing the work time and resources as equally as possible among all.

    We would gain huge quality of life (less work, more leisure time).

    Of course everything that is done (out of nuclear energy) to reorganize our energy production on renewable resources is a must. Solar energy and others are every day more, much more, effective but without state intervention is hard to see how industries and consumers will move to them fast and massively. Tax oil and fund renewables, as well as sustainable housing, etc. Or simply forbid oil altogether (in a gradual and reasonable manner).

    You are thinking in Capitalist terms: "growth" is a must. But we don't really need "growth" (more and more absurd consumption - nothing else) but consolidation of effective quality economies and societies. Obviously ecology now means abolition of Capitalism or at least a strong restriction of it.

    The costs of Global Warming are without doubt much higher than anything we can do to counter it: masses are being displaced by the mere advance of deserts (not just due to GW but also to overall idiotic productivism and to lack of funding of education and locally sustainable economies). The costs will increase exponentially over the next decades, even if there are also some "gains" (like exploiting the Arctic) and the very survival of Humankind and even "life as we know it" may be at risk if we do not reverse the trend fast.

    Fossil fuels are a huge problem, not anymore any solution. Nuclear energy too. We need to push the alternatives, yet I see no or very few of them actively implemented.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The way to go is to drastically limit consumption (and therefore production), at least where there is excess of it, distributing the work time and resources as equally as possible among all."

    Ironically, the current economic crisis is already drastically reducing both production and consumption. But in so doing it's destroying millions of jobs and impoverishing millions of people. Good for "the environment," yes, but good for the planet as a whole, no. Because the planet contains people, not just endangered species, rain forests and glaciers.

    I like the idea of reducing work hours, but that would also reduce wages and for the great majority of workers, even in the USA, wages are already far too low.

    "Of course everything that is done (out of nuclear energy) to reorganize our energy production on renewable resources is a must. Solar energy and others are every day more, much more, effective but without state intervention is hard to see how industries and consumers will move to them fast and massively. Tax oil and fund renewables, as well as sustainable housing, etc. Or simply forbid oil altogether (in a gradual and reasonable manner)."

    The ONLY technology sufficiently developed to make a difference according to Al Gore's timetable is nuclear power. Solar and wind energy are extremely promising, but won't be economically feasible on the scale needed for some time. According to Gore, however, we don't have any time, we must turn things around NOW.

    What we have with regard to these environmental problems, which are very real by the way, is a kind of magical thinking not that different from the magical thinking of those who are looking forward to "jump starting" the economy and returning our financial system back to "normal." Realistically, we will not be able to begin to arrest the effects of global warming without either going nuclear big time, which neither you nor I would like to see, or, as you say, cutting drastically down on our use of fossil fuels. But cutting down on these fuels at this point in history, when huge countries like India and China depend on such fuels not only for their "economy," but the survival of their populations, is not the answer. It's the height of hypocrisy to expect the undeveloped world to make sacrifices to undo the sins of the developed world. And to say "we are all in the same boat" is a lot like what bankers like Paulson and Bernanke want us to believe: that what is good for Wall St. is also good for "Main St." If the leaders of the undeveloped world were to take such reasoning seriously it would be as great a disaster for their people as taking the advice of Western "free market" neoliberals has been.

    "Obviously ecology now means abolition of Capitalism or at least a strong restriction of it."
    I agree that the collapse of the capitalist system goes hand in hand with ecological concerns. We do not need "growth" either from an economical or an ecological standpoint.

    We are, I think, in fundamental agreement regarding both the economy and ecology. My argument is not with those who feel the need for us to clean up the planet, but those who, like Al Gore, want to panic us into taking drastic steps to ameliorate long term consequences before we have had an opportunity to properly assess their consequences in the short term. The ethanol disaster is a perfect example of what can go wrong when only one group of experts is being consulted and experts in other areas are ignored -- or accused of bias in favor of big business. No one is more critical of big business than I am, but ethanol has become big business and also produced a huge disaster that many could see coming but Al Gore couldn't. In that sense he isn't that different from Alan Greenspan.

    As someone with a serious interest in archaeology, you know how many times the climate of the Earth has altered during human history, how drastically water levels have changed, etc. And you also know how adaptable humans have been to such changes. While this round of global warming may be primarily due to human activities, there have been many instances in the past when it happened "naturally" and humans simply had to deal with it as best they could.

    The bottom line is that some of the most serious consequences of global warming, whatever the cause, are already being seen by the experts as irreversible, regardless of what we do. What that tells me is that 1. we must proceed in a reasonable manner toward dealing with matters that CAN be changed, such as air and water pollution and the development of alternative power, and 2. we must take steps to prepare the planet and the people for the changing conditions that global warming will produce. As I see it, the best way to proceed with respect to no. 2 is to attempt more or less the same thing that the Chinese did, a drastic reduction in the birth rate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. China is the only instance I know of where a government was able (in some measure) to deliberately reduce its birthrate. Its means have been harsh, and it is difficult to envision the same level of success outside of authoritarian environs. Therefore, severe as it is, the population problem is less amenable to decisive solutions than something that is an economic and technological challenge, like global warming. As to Gore, his demands are not feasible in the time frame he prefers. I have wondered for several years whether he really is an ally to those of us who favor relatively aggressive mitigation efforts: he certainly increases general awareness of the problem, but, unfortunately his populist overtures rely partly on exaggerations and lies that discredit his primary message with some people.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous writes:
    "China is the only instance I know of where a government was able (in some measure) to deliberately reduce its birthrate. Its means have been harsh, and it is difficult to envision the same level of success outside of authoritarian environs."

    Effective measures need not be harsh. Just because China chose a particular method doesn't mean every other country must follow suit. Imo positive reinforcement is more effective than negative, so maybe some incentives for families with few children would be more effective. Also birth control, sex education, etc.

    "Therefore, severe as it is, the population problem is less amenable to decisive solutions than something that is an economic and technological challenge, like global warming."

    I totally disagree. The methods being recommended by Gore will only exacerbate the current economic emergency. In fact they will make things far worse, since the huge financial losses everyone is now concerned with exist on paper, whereas Gore's proposals will have an effect on the resources themselves. Bringing the population levels under control in the poorest countries is an absolute necessity in any case, no matter what your agenda is. As I wrote above, we could conquer hunger and disease 100% over the next ten years and all it would do would be to ensure a huge population explosion in the next generation -- unless we deal now with the population issue.

    "As to Gore, his demands are not feasible in the time frame he prefers."

    I'm glad you see that. My main problem is not so much with his goals as with the timing he is insisting on. The worst effects of global warming over the next 100 or 200 years are irreversible in any case. Not that we should forget about the problem, only that we will have time to deal with it. There is nothing to be gained by panicked decision making.

    "I have wondered for several years whether he really is an ally to those of us who favor relatively aggressive mitigation efforts: he certainly increases general awareness of the problem, but, unfortunately his populist overtures rely partly on exaggerations and lies that discredit his primary message with some people."

    I'm not ready to accuse him of lying. However I agree that there are aspects of the pitch he is presenting that could backfire and cause many potential supporters to simply turn their backs on these issue.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree that population control ought to be a major priority for a number of interrelated reasons (eg, utilitarian, geopolitical, environmental). However, I remain sceptical of the efficacy of any policies thus far attempted (other than China). A book was published this year that analyzes the history of attempts at manipulating population growth in the 20th century: "Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population" By Matthew Connelly. Like so many other social engineering projects throughout history, these projects were mainly failures--and produced, besides, as is also typical, many unintended consequences, mostly unpleasant. Everyone tends to be treated the same under these (often coercive) programs, which is dehumanizing, as William Blake suggested: "One law for the lion and the ox is not justice."
    For this to work, the strategies adopted must be much more sophisticated than in the past. And, to have a consequential impact in the huge swathes of high growth areas, far more resources will have to be committed--in particular, the greatest impact on birthrates appears to be generated by educating women. Are we prepared to pay for an extra 200 million female students in the third world? And would the Muslim world even permit this in its sphere? I suspect that without the kind of aggressive innovation that Silicon Valley churns out, as opposed to the rather sclerotic public sector--this is not going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with you about the difficulty of controlling population. It will be a challenge for sure, especially if we want to refrain from Draconian methods. But surely there must be a way to positively rather than negatively reinforce responsible reproductive behavior (aka: safe sex). And what's wrong with an all out effort to educate women? As far as the Muslim world is concerned, there are many open-minded Muslims who accept the need for female equality in all areas, though admittedly there will be resistance to this idea in many quarters.

    Maybe one of the problems is that the issue is too often seen from a medical and/or economic or political perspective and not enough from the perspective of, say, anthropology. An anthropologist will tell you that for most poor people having lots of children is the local form of social security. Where infant mortality is high, then the more you have the more likely at least some will survive to support you in your old age.

    From this perspective, any efforts to bring people out of poverty, to improve their medical care and provide a meaningful social safety net for their old age will make it much easier to persuade them to accept birth control.

    In any case, and regardless of the difficulties, so many of the world's problems, from the availability of water, food, power, etc., all the way to concerns directly related to global warming, hinge on population control. Without it, nothing we do on any of these other fronts will matter.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wrong. Al Gore is not the most dangerous person on the planet. His attempt to change the direction of the huge ship is not being made from the wheel house, and even it were, the ship has inertia way beyond the will of any one man.

    The abbreviation g.w. is somewhat telling, don’t you think? G.W. who? When Iraq was invaded to secure its oil, the ship was being steered directly toward to petroleum pumps in the desert. Wrong. What is in the desert is sunshine, the obvious source of power for the foreseeable future. There is no harm in tapping the sun - the sooner the better.

    True, there is not nearly enough sunshine at Indian Point, and the tides of the Hudson will not provide a replacement. Gore has his mind on electrical power distribution – the National Grid – as a necessary component to backing away from fossil fuels. One can fear the unfettered use of eminent domain mandates to knock down everything in the path of the wires, but the rights of way are largely in place, what is missing are the wires that can handle the load.

    I don’t disagree about the pending dilemma of population, so I’ll propose an alternative to your pick on the MDPotP. It’s the Pope and his minions of sexual perverts who demand abstinence that they don’t get from their purportedly celibate clergy while urging everyone else to multiply as if it was the nineteenth century.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, Zierot, if the Earth is a Titanic faced with an oncoming iceberg, the proper response would not be a last minute attempt to steer the huge vessel away from the inevitable collision, but to deploy the lifeboats as soon and as effectively -- and fairly -- as possible. It's called adaptation and it's worked many times in the past.

    If Holland can survive below sea level then so can Manhattan and all the other allegedly "threatened" beach properties.

    Actually there is a lot to be said in favor of global warming, which is certainly preferable to global cooling -- and the possibility of a future ice age. If the Canadians were smart they'd be opening up their northern territories for settlement at bargain rates. IF they really believed what Gore is saying, that is. I'll believe all the global warming hype when people actually are willing to put their money where their ideology is and buy property in places that will presumably be warmer and thus more valuable in future. Do they really believe that? I wonder. I haven't noticed anyone rushing to buy such properties as yet.

    I won't touch your Pope comment with a ten foot pole but I do agree that the policies of the Catholic church may well be far more of a problem for the future of humanity than anything Al Gore is preaching about.

    ReplyDelete

 
Add to Technorati Favorites