Climate Change: A fighting retreat

“Sometimes our role in life isn’t even “to hold the line” it’s to engage in a fighting retreat, to buy time for others. For most of us alive today, that may be our job. It’s not glorious, it’s not fun, but it is necessary.”

Your words brought to my mind the one plausibly good thing the Wehrmacht accomplished in WW2, which was to hold off the advancing Soviet army long enough in early 1945 to evacuate close to a million German civilians (and ~350,000 soldiers, let it be said) from East Prussia & nearby areas. It was far too late for an orderly evacuation from the Reich’s eastern territories, thanks to the fanaticism of party officials who forbade retreat until the Soviets were just over the horizon. It’s a far from perfect analogy, of course, nevertheless…

Will the people who have the power to “hold the line” against global warming decide, sooner rather than later, to engage in a fighting retreat? Or will moneyed interests continue to work to sink any and all efforts to stem the tide, consigning millions, especially and not coincidentally, from poorer and less politically influential countries, to an awful fate?

Because the stakes, as you indicate (“we might keep the deaths under a billion”) are far higher in terms of human life than any war of the 20th century. Yet the urgency with which the perceived threats of WW2 were met, for example, are nowhere to be found in today’s “war on warming.”

The conflict over global warming may indeed be lost but, as you say, there’s still time to hold off the inevitable and get as many people to safety, so to speak, in the interim.

Given our civilization’s track record, I’m not optimistic.

I came across this article in The Telegraph this past week — about predictions that if we do not, as a species — meaning every nation in the world, do something about carbon emissions, by 2300 AD up to half of the earth will be uninhabitable by humans and many other flora and fauna.

Too damn hot.

This report takes a very long view, for us modern humans at least, looking forward beyond 2100 AD, which, according to the researchers from the University of New South Wales in Australia and Purdue University in the US, is when most current predictions stop. But the warming will not just stop.

In fact temperatures may rise by up to 12C (21.6F) within just three centuries making many countries into deserts.

The study, published in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said humans will not be able to adapt or survive in such conditions.

Professor Tony McMichael, one of the authors, said if the world continues to pump out greenhouse gases at the current rate it will cause catastrophic warming.

“Under realistic scenarios out to 2300, we may be faced with temperature increases of 12 degrees or even more,” he said. “If this happens, our current worries about sea level rise, occasional heatwaves and bushfires, biodiversity loss and agricultural difficulties will pale into insignificance beside a major threat – as much as half the currently inhabited globe may simply become too hot for people to live there.”

Professor Steven Sherwood, a fellow author, said there was no chance of the Earth reaching such temperatures this century.

But he said there was a good chance temperatures could rise by at least 7C (12.6F) by 2300, that would also make much of the world inhabitable.

“There’s something like a 50/50 chance of that over the long term,” he said.?blockquote>

Then NPR had a report about species of lizards going extinct — from higher temperatures: In some hot areas, it’s become so much hotter that desert acclimated lizards cannot stay out in daytime long enough to forage for sufficient food. — and they die of starvation. They end up spending up to nine hours seeking shade, leaving little time for finding food. Not every type of lizard, but warming temperatures have definitively begun to cause the extinction of species.

Too damn hot already for some creatures.

What kind of world will we leaving our children, following generations? We of this country, all of us of this world? The leadership must come from the developed and most polluting nations. And it must be now.

And…what is our president doing to jump start R&D for sustainable energy sources? Our Congress, our leaders of any kind?

Where are the Manhattan Project and Man on the Moon type programs with the necessary dedicated funding and the sense of urgency needed to shake our leaders and all of us out of our complacency? Where is the determination to do something? The urgency to experiment, to do the research, devlopment, deployment?

Jared Diamond’s book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, posits that societies in which the elites are able to buffer themselves from the impending changes are the one which collapse. If the elites do not feel the effects of their decision making, they’re perfectly happy to let things go on as they are…until they aren’t to such a degree everyone’s toast. Or starved to death. Or there’s not enough water.

We seem to be on that trajectory.

Where is leadership?

I’m not so pessimistic on climate change. I do think that there will be problems, big problems, but at the same time solutions are being developed. I’m looking out for carbon sequestration from the air and the ability to convert that carbon into solid bricks for storage. Lots of energy needed, but you can use carbon-neutral energy sources for it. Plus, some new research indicates that traditional methods (requiring temperatures of around 800 C) can be improved upon greatly (moving temperatures down to around 40 C).

This won’t magically solve our problems, but its a mechanism to eventually regulate the climate and mitigate some of the really bad scenarios (the 12 C by 2300 ones).

The idea that stopping this is impossible is a joke, this doesn’t even rise to 3/10 compare to what our ancestors went through. Engineers who have worked solutions stand idled, because people won’t inform themselves AND DEMAND BETTER. The solutions are here now, we need to stop burning fossel fuels and convert to electricity..no disruptions, no real pain, just hard work and higher taxes for those that bathe in money…from a Green website see 2 link bottom.

What’s weird is that the existing utility companies continue to pay for the deadly, difficult, and costly coal, oil, natural gas for their power plants, and the “traditional” nuclear power instead of using the Silver Bullet that the Brilliant Engineers have already worked out. I’m able to go to a nearby bridge and look down at long trains, six abreast, filled with coal. Why don’t they stop paying for all of that pollution and start putting in the Silver Bullet, plant by plant? Don’t they know how much that would save them year after year? That’s money just sitting there. What Evil Genius is stopping them?

And what about their competitors? Don’t they know that they could be eating the existing utility companies’ lunch if only they would use the Silver Bullet that Engineers have come up with? Where is their Entrepreneurial Spirit?

The Chinese are choking from all of the coal that they are burning. Why don’t they leapfrog over the Western dinosaurs and start replacing all of their coal-burning plants with the Silver Bullet. They must not be as smart and forward looking as people say.

“…Why don’t they stop paying for all of that pollution and start putting in the Silver Bullet, plant by plant?”

A lot of idiots don’t understand that “private” entities do not “fund” or give “charity” to other private entities.

To be clear, because we have a lot of really stupid people, very few [if any] technologies, that require huge sums of capitol and enormous time lines that exceed patent protection by decades to break even are ever done by private enterprise…

It’s really sad so many people don’t understand that…almost every aspect of modern life had decades if not everlasting support from government. Trains, autos, electricity, phones, computers, internet, planes…the list goes on and on, but that won’t stop idiots from saying stupid shit…they just just close their eyes and scream Ayn Rand catch phrases until everybody leaves the room.

Some helpful perspective, perhaps?

…The population was reduced to a small number, came close to going extinct, but just pulled through. There is evidence of a fierce bottleneck — perhaps down to a population of 15,000, some 70,000 years ago, caused by a six-year ‘volcanic winter’ followed by a thousand-year ice age. Like the children of Noah in the myth, we are all descended from this small population, and that is why we are so genetically uniform…
– Richard Dawkins, “The Ancestor’s Tale”

No, I’m not minimizing our unforgivable crimes against Nature. It’s just while reading a book dealing with evolutionary time scales one feels a bit better about Her ultimate fate, and what She might yet do with it.

Some helpful perspective, perhaps?

Those of you with children or grandchildren should sit them down and explain that they might be one of billions who won’t have an adulthood likes those of us who came before, but they can console themselves with the knowledge that even if only 15,000 of them survive, the species can go on. Or, maybe not the species, but Nature, at least. They just need some perspective.

Could someone give an example of how that talk with the kids should go?

I am blocked from putting multiple links to support my post, but you can spend 10 seconds to check my link will show what complete ass your words make you out to be.

The Physicians for Social Responsibility (winner of 1985 Nobel Peace Prize, if that matters to you) and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research have produced a fact sheet (last updated in July 2009) titled “Thorium Fuel: No Panacea for Nuclear Power”. In it, they write:

“Research and development of thorium fuel has been undertaken in Germany, India, Japan, 
Russia, the UK and the U.S. for more than half a century.  Besides remote fuel fabrication 
and issues at the front end of the fuel cycle, thorium‐U‐233 breeder reactors produce fuel 
(“breed”) much more slowly than uranium‐plutonium‐239 breeders.  This leads to 
technical complications.  India is sometimes cited as the country that has successfully 
developed thorium fuel.  In fact, India has been trying to develop a thorium breeder fuel 
cycle for decades but has not yet done so commercially. ”

and

“Thorium may be abundant and possess certain technical advantages, but it does not mean 
that it is economical.  Compared to uranium, thorium fuel cycle is likely to be even more 
costly.  In a once‐through mode, it will need both uranium enrichment (or plutonium 
separation) and thorium target rod production.   In a breeder configuration, it will need 
reprocessing, which is costly. ”

Anonymous, when you pull your head out of your ass you can read this

Perhaps you can write to the group Physicians for Social Responsibility. They appear to have looked at the claims for thorium as a fuel and are not convinced. If you could make the case to them, then they would withdraw the objections and support this possible solution. Or, are you going to say that they have their heads up their asses?

Do other people share your optimism for thorium fuel? No doubt. Here is some (google-talk) video of several rapidly talking men who would appear to be thoroughly convinced that “thorium reactors” are the Silver Bullet to energy production: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk&sn

That video includes excerpts of a talk given by Kirk Sorensen, who is one of quoted sources in the Columbus Dispatch article you cited. Notice that your Columbus Dispatch article did not cite anyone from PfPR or any other people who might have questioned the technology or the claims made by the advocates of thorium fuel.

What I will say about that is that I have seen many postings of technological Silver Bullets from many people over many years. They are all quite optimistic about their solutions, if only someone would put up the money to support it.

P.S., For what it is worth, I did look at blog posting at ‘greenassassinbrigade’.

Also, I do not have any economic interest (investments or employment) in some competing technology.

OMG Anon,

You just keep sticking your further & further up your ass,

Earlier you pontificated:

“…Why don’t they stop paying for all of that pollution and start putting in the Silver Bullet, plant by plant?” – Anon

Showing your complete ignorance of market dynamics.

Next you pontificated:

“…When there is a single instance of a thorium reactor, you can begin to state with confidence that you have a Silver Bullet.” – Anon

Showing your complete ignorance of the fact that it has already been done 40 years ago.

Any humility? Nope, you just keep sticking your head further up your ass. You quote “Physicians for Social Responsibility” on breeder reactors…dude are you so clueless and do you think people here are so clueless to:

1] Trust a group of Doctors [Physicians NOT PHYSICISTS DUMMY] on nuclear BREEDER reactors…

2] Uhm idiot, breeder reactors are not a panacea for jack shit.

I can’t wait to watch how your shit in your pants next…time for you to post.

Original post

The idea that stopping this is impossible is a joke, this doesn’t even rise to 3/10 compare to what our ancestors went through. Engineers who have worked solutions stand idled, because people won’t inform themselves AND DEMAND BETTER. The solutions are here now, we need to stop burning fossil fuels and convert to electricity..no disruptions, no real pain, just hard work and higher taxes for those that bathe in money…from a Green website see 2 link bottom.

“Thorium has a number of major advantages over Uranium reactors

1. Fuel is 10 times more abundant and readily available in the waste streams of existing metal mines. This will ensure a good supply without additional mining of any kind especially Uranium mining. Thorium … See Moretechnology will also keep fuel prices low compared to what will happen if a major build out of new Uranium reactors is begun. Ur prices have been suppressed for decades because of the availability of reprocessed Russian warheads taken out of service in arms control deals, this supply stream is ending and Ur prices will skyrocket in the next decade if major new projects come on line.

2. Thorium reactors are self regulating and don’t need expensive and dangerous high pressure systems, lower costs and lower risk.

3. Thorium waste is only hot for a couple hundred years and contains fewer exotic and toxic materials. While still a major storage problem this fact greatly improves the long term logistics of nuclear waste.

4. Thorium reactors can be built without worries of weapon development, You can’t make a bomb from it so places like Iran can build them without threatening their neighbors.

5. Thorium reactors can be used to downgrade the toxicity of other nuclear wastes containing plutonium while using them as part of the fuel mix. This reduces dangerous waste and weapons grade fuel, win/win.”

http://greenassassinbrigade.blogspot.com/2010/03/should-greens-consider-thorium-reactors.html

I’ll have to read the Dawkins book that Petro cites, but i’m curious as to the “evidence” of a worldwide population of 15,000 humans 70,000 years ago. Does he foot/end note that claim?

I’m not saying that it isn’t true, and populations are very elastic. But it seems unlikely that we can accurately ascertain worldwide populations that far back given landform changes, sea level differences, etc. over the course of that many years.

Genetic data, i suppose, is the evidence of that claim. But the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.