Here's what's been happening with heat waves around the world:
A heatwave was defined as a period of 4 or more days at a given location where the
minimum daily temperature was greater than the 99th percentile of the distribution
of minimum daily temperature at that location over the 1986-2005 reference period,for the summer months.
You aren't going to like it when it happens to you, believe me. Solomon and colleagues in NEJM comment on the global emergency, which is described more fully by Haines and Ebi here. They provide this figure:
I know it's too small to read but you can go to the original. Extreme weather events including massive storms, droughts, and wildfires; heat stress killing people and making it impossible to work; air pollution from burning fossil fuels and wildfires; water shortages; food shortages; vector born diseases; mass migration and socio-cultural stress and destruction. These aren't just off in some distant future. They are happening now, and it will get worse fast.
And here we are squabbling about an idiotic wall on the southern border, all because Vladimir Putin put his stooge in the White House. Listen up folks, this is the gravest emergency humanity has ever faced. World War II happened, and then it was over. This won't be over, ever, unless we stop it, starting now. Nothing else matters if we don't fix this.
8 comments:
Let's assume that 1) This is an ongoing trend into the future and 2) that it's within our power to change things.
What solution do you propose? How will China get on board? India? Will you stop eating meat, eggs, etc.? Will everyone else.
Your post seems to create more questions than it answers.
China and India are on board, in fact. China is making huge efforts to convert to a renewable energy regime, and is as you must know the world's largest manufacturer of photovoltaics. The U.S. is the laggard. I do no eat meat and have not for more than 40 years. I don't know what everyone else will do but I know what they should do.
We are in the middle, or perhaps the last half, of a global experiment, the largest and longest experiment ever attempted by humans. The experiment is to see what the results are of burning fossil fuels, thus increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases, and thus increasing the global average temperature. What will be the result? Will the good outweigh the bad? Will it be neutral? Will the consequences be catastrophic? Who in their right mind would agree to such an experiment? Who in their right mind would agree to continue such an experiment, given what we see happening right now? The way I see it, their are only two categories of people who favor continuing the experiment. They are the ignorant and the evil. The evil, are, of course, those who benefit.
The Chinese will lead the way on renewable energy resources, and eventually, when we have no other options, we'll be buying stuff from them instead of making it ourselves. Ronald Reagan helped make sure of that when he dumped all of Carter's energy programs. Can you imagine what we might have done if we had kept going on those programs back in the '80's?
And I don't think the appropriate response today is, "Oh, Gee, it's a hard problem, so let's not do anything about it."
Until 2010, the energy consumed in the production of solar panels outstripped the power they would generate. Currently, they produce more than they consume in their manufacture, but make no mistake, it is not a 100% net gain. They still consume a shitload of energy in their production and that energy comes from fossil fuels.
That's exactly why China is the largest producer of solar panels and yet, China produces about twice the greenhouse gases as the US.
The whole problem is the renewable energy technology is not mature enough to substitute green energy for fossil fuels at this time. I believe that as this technology evolves, it will make a whole lot of sense for businesses and individuals to migrate to these technologies. Tax credits and other government subsidies will not be necessary.
I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, right now fossil fuel consumption is necessary for the production of renewable energy technologies but the trajectory is in the right direction. This is called Energy Return on Investment (EROI) and it compounds over time. 2010 was quite a while ago, and China is going in the right direction. We should too, and a carbon tax or government subsidies to accelerate the process are appropriate because they are worth it for the net social benefits.
My point was solar, at this time, is not the panacea that's its proponents characterize it to be. Besides the large amount of fossil fuel energy needed for production, the pollution the manufacture of solar panels creates is substantial.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html?referrer=emailarticle&noredirect=on
I'm all about finding better solutions to our problems, but it's this lack of disclosure about the fossil fuel energy consumed in production and the dangerous pollution costs that disturbs me the most.
Well sure, manufacturers of renewable energy technology need to be environmentally responsible. The point is, as more and more renewable energy becomes available, it will become possible to use renewable energy in the process of manufacturing. Phasing out fossil fuel won't be instantaneous, but it will still happen over time.
Good to keep in mind the challenges, to be sure, but just because it's challenging is certainly not an excuse not to do it.
Anonymous, why are you concentrating on the environmental cost of producing solar and ignoring the environmental cost of using fossil fuels as a primary source of energy? Since we are going to have to use fossil fuels for at least some of our energy needs, why not use it to start producing technology that will let us wean ourselves off fossil fuels?
Post a Comment