3 ms·

I agree with his premise, though I don't entirely agree with his conclusions. I've come to think that the problem with our approach to global warming right now

I agree with his premise, though I don't entirely agree with his conclusions. I've come to think that the problem with our approach to global warming right now is that it's been yoked to environmentalism as a broader, and in many ways, spiritual cause. Many of us are guilty of using the threat of global warming to shepherd other goals in there...e.g. renewable or alternative energy, resource conservation etc. I happen to be inclined toward spiritual environmentalism myself, but if the earth is REALLY warming up due to human caused carbon inputs, we are fucked if we think a few extra wind farms and energy-conscious homes are going to solve anything. The only solution I think mankind is even capable of undertaking is a technology solution...i.e. we need to find a way of getting carbon out of the air and into the ground. It may not be pretty, cheap, or some nirvana of holistic living, but it's actually how the problem will get solved. Don't know if I'm making sense, but this is just what I was thinking about recently.

jerf 18y ago
One of the proofs that the advocacy has become spiritual is precisely that engineering solutions are verboten. You can't engineer your way to spirituality, you can only suffer you way to it. (And if the poor must suffer twice as much, well, that's the price of my spirituality.) If CO2 were a real problem and we were actually interested in solving it, engineering solutions are not a option, they are the only option if the alarmists are correct. We must not only stop putting so much out there, we must actively take out what we have put in. Yes, I use the word "alarmist" and I'm basically a "doubter"; I'll self-label so there's no need to accuse. A small-but-significant portion of the reason why is the fundamental unseriousness of the alarmists on this point; if it's a problem, then let's fix it, not use global warming as an excuse to implement a whole raft of policies that oh-so-coincidentally you wanted even before it's was a problem and not-so-coincidentally aren't all that effective against global warming. (The whole "we can't afford to take engineering risks we don't understand" is complete nonsense. Apparently we know with 100% certainty what is coming down the pike with our current emissions, and that is Complete Doom. It's hard to beat a negative like that and... frankly, engineering isn't exactly unfamiliar with that condition anyhow. Apparently we can predict the climate with 100% certainty unless we actually try to use this knowledge to fix the problem, and we must instead only engage in actions that by the IPCC's own admission and models will cost trillions and do next-to-nothing. See, I just have trouble wrapping my head around this whole meme-complex as an engineer; either we have a real problem and engineering solutions should be on the table, or engineering solutions shouldn't be on the table because we don't have a real problem, but trying to split the difference is just inconsistent. BTW, if you believe in AGW but you also believe that engineering solutions should be on the table then I would not label you an alarmist; I reserve the term for those who are using nakedly using AGW as a means of advancing all-but-unrelated political agendas, not those who honestly believe there's a problem that should be solved in the most effective manner possible, whatever that may turn out to be. I don't really agree that this is a problem (there are great problems but they lie elsewhere and don't have one nice catch-phrase), but if I'm wrong, hey, let's fix it! It's worth saying again.)
- celoyd 18y ago
  On spirituality: Yes, a lot of thinking about global warming resembles apocalypticism and moral panic. Some of it is downright horrifying. But that people argue for something incorrectly doesn't make it incorrect. (And apocalypticism and moral panic are presumably adaptive behaviors.) On acceptance of engineering solutions: Are they really verboten among more than a few factions? Do you have numbers on how many people are an in the alarmist category v. AGW believers like me who accept or encourage engineering solutions? I don't, but I bet it's not as bad as you suggest. Alarmists, like all borderline kooks, are overrepresented in the press because they're fun to read about. I think almost all of us are sane enough that we want the best solution to what we think is a serious problem. On environmentalism pork in AGW policy: This is a problem. Some of that ethanol stuff, for example, is reminiscent of the rumors that drafts of the Patriot Act had been sitting on a shelf for hears. But for some other measures, there's a more charitable interpretation of the fact that environmentaists were asking for them before we were at the point of crisis.
  - yummyfajitas 18y ago
    An engineering solution we could build today: nuclear power. Ask any mainstream environmentalist what they think about it. See also opposition to GM food. This doesn't even get into the horrified reactions you hear when you bring up geoengineering. Climate models (which we trust, right?) tell us that careful geoengineering can prevent reverse AGW. Side note: the idea that the Patriot act was sitting on the shelf for years is more than just a rumor. Joe Biden confirmed that he wrote the original version of it in 1995. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.0 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html?tag=newsL...
    - fp 18y ago
      Nuclear power is not an option. There are about three companies in the world that have the know-how to build a nuclear power plant. And they are already at the limit of their building-capacity. Also, some people argue that the nuclear fuel resources are rather limited and will support even the existing plants for less than 100 years. For a significant reduction (10%-20%. No idea if that is enough to fight global warming) of CO2 emissions, it would be necessary to build at least three times as many nuclear plants as there are today.

jerf 18y ago

One of the proofs that the advocacy has become spiritual is precisely that engineering solutions are verboten. You can't engineer your way to spirituality, you can only suffer you way to it. (And if the poor must suffer twice as much, well, that's the price of my spirituality.) If CO2 were a real problem and we were actually interested in solving it, engineering solutions are not a option, they are the only option if the alarmists are correct. We must not only stop putting so much out there, we must actively take out what we have put in. Yes, I use the word "alarmist" and I'm basically a "doubter"; I'll self-label so there's no need to accuse. A small-but-significant portion of the reason why is the fundamental unseriousness of the alarmists on this point; if it's a problem, then let's fix it, not use global warming as an excuse to implement a whole raft of policies that oh-so-coincidentally you wanted even before it's was a problem and not-so-coincidentally aren't all that effective against global warming. (The whole "we can't afford to take engineering risks we don't understand" is complete nonsense. Apparently we know with 100% certainty what is coming down the pike with our current emissions, and that is Complete Doom. It's hard to beat a negative like that and... frankly, engineering isn't exactly unfamiliar with that condition anyhow. Apparently we can predict the climate with 100% certainty unless we actually try to use this knowledge to fix the problem, and we must instead only engage in actions that by the IPCC's own admission and models will cost trillions and do next-to-nothing. See, I just have trouble wrapping my head around this whole meme-complex as an engineer; either we have a real problem and engineering solutions should be on the table, or engineering solutions shouldn't be on the table because we don't have a real problem, but trying to split the difference is just inconsistent. BTW, if you believe in AGW but you also believe that engineering solutions should be on the table then I would not label you an alarmist; I reserve the term for those who are using nakedly using AGW as a means of advancing all-but-unrelated political agendas, not those who honestly believe there's a problem that should be solved in the most effective manner possible, whatever that may turn out to be. I don't really agree that this is a problem (there are great problems but they lie elsewhere and don't have one nice catch-phrase), but if I'm wrong, hey, let's fix it! It's worth saying again.)

celoyd 18y ago
On spirituality: Yes, a lot of thinking about global warming resembles apocalypticism and moral panic. Some of it is downright horrifying. But that people argue for something incorrectly doesn't make it incorrect. (And apocalypticism and moral panic are presumably adaptive behaviors.) On acceptance of engineering solutions: Are they really verboten among more than a few factions? Do you have numbers on how many people are an in the alarmist category v. AGW believers like me who accept or encourage engineering solutions? I don't, but I bet it's not as bad as you suggest. Alarmists, like all borderline kooks, are overrepresented in the press because they're fun to read about. I think almost all of us are sane enough that we want the best solution to what we think is a serious problem. On environmentalism pork in AGW policy: This is a problem. Some of that ethanol stuff, for example, is reminiscent of the rumors that drafts of the Patriot Act had been sitting on a shelf for hears. But for some other measures, there's a more charitable interpretation of the fact that environmentaists were asking for them before we were at the point of crisis.
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  An engineering solution we could build today: nuclear power. Ask any mainstream environmentalist what they think about it. See also opposition to GM food. This doesn't even get into the horrified reactions you hear when you bring up geoengineering. Climate models (which we trust, right?) tell us that careful geoengineering can prevent reverse AGW. Side note: the idea that the Patriot act was sitting on the shelf for years is more than just a rumor. Joe Biden confirmed that he wrote the original version of it in 1995. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.0 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html?tag=newsL...
  - fp 18y ago
    Nuclear power is not an option. There are about three companies in the world that have the know-how to build a nuclear power plant. And they are already at the limit of their building-capacity. Also, some people argue that the nuclear fuel resources are rather limited and will support even the existing plants for less than 100 years. For a significant reduction (10%-20%. No idea if that is enough to fight global warming) of CO2 emissions, it would be necessary to build at least three times as many nuclear plants as there are today.