Thanks for an interesting read.
Hello Kooiti Masuda...
"We cannot assume either that the future generations will magically
find
some novel low-entropy resources that we cannot access now."
You remind me of a book I had when I was 16. It enthused about
torroidal magnetic field containment based fusion generation. This,
aparently, was going to provide ample cheap energy by the 1990s. They
didn't quite go as far as to suggest "electricity too cheap to meter".
So far neither have happened, but IMHO fusion remains for me our best
hope to sidestep this mess.
Hello James Annan...
I agree with a lot of what you say, and frankly that worries me. ;)
What I mean is that, given the conflicts, market woes and catastrophe's
of the last 100 years, our pattern has still been onwards and upwards.
I too find Stern unconvincing because where challenges arise the market
will adapt along the way, even leaving aside incidental changes that
remove elements of current economic activity (like the ice making). The
Market is quick to change it's focus, and as past crashes have shown it
is able to reorganise and move on.
Furthermore for all of the talk of Peak Oil, we have stupendous
reserves of coal to fill the gap. We may well be at Hubbert's Peak for
Oil, but demand seems to be very price elastic, here in the UK we pay
way more than the States, yet don't seem to suffer greatly for that.
So based on my understanding the consequences of AGW in the
'foreseeable future' are not likely to severely limit economic growth
or even restrict population growth.
Now I'm not worried about agreeing with you in principal or anything
;). What seems to relax you makes me glad I'm nearly 40 and have no
kids.
What bothers me is that I think our very adaptability and technological
power will enable us to continue emitting CO2 until levels are so high
that even a climate sensitivity of 3degC would be of no comfort. The
reasons you find to be somewhat more relaxed about AGW than others are
the very reason we can keep "stretching" this particular "elastic
band". And the further and faster we proceed with the AGW experiment
the more risk we run of potential disaster. I am doubtful of serious
moves away from fossil fuels or to reduce CO2 because unlike CFCs our
entire civilisation is underpinned by fossil energy. Human ingenuity,
adaptability and intelligence are the means by which we will avoid the
ongoing climate change impeding us.
Imagine it. 2050: almost 10 billion people, of whom a far greater
percentage than now are living carbon intensive lifestyles(I still have
faith that globalisation will make people wealthier.). And at that time
we're moving back to coal which produces more CO2 per joule than oil or
gas. Either we'll run out of fossil fuels, find an alternative, or some
'negative feedback' will act upon us.
But it'll have to be a monster to stop a species like ours.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
