If we side-step the debate regarding the significance of anthropogenic contributions to global warming, and give the consensus of scientific opinion the benefit of any doubt and concede that we must immediately begin reducing CO2 emissions in order to avoid catastrophe, then we have an insoluble problem. We're in deep trouble and I can see no practical way out of our dilemma short of some revolutionary technological break-through in the efficient production of clean energy.
I'm amazed at the lack of awareness of the vital role of energy costs in our civilization and their direct link to our prosperity.
There seems to be some prevalent idea that there's no relationship between the cost of something and the energy required to produce it, market it, transport it, and maintain it with warranty agreements etc.
The fundamental principle that needs to be grasped before one can even begin to tackle climate change is that energy is the life-blood of our civilization. Nothing moves or happens without an expenditure of energy.
Once you understand this principle, it then becomes easy to appreciate that there are basically only two avenues or approaches we can take to reduce CO2 emissions.
(1) Develop a source of clean energy which is as efficient as coal and oil.
(2) Reduce our material prosperity in the absence of such clean energy production which is not as efficient as coal.
What's happening, in my view, is a massive world-wide movement by politicians to trick the public into thinking they can have their cake and eat it too.
The unpleasant reality is, we simply do not have the technology which can produce electricity as efficiently as a coal-fired power station, and we do not have the technology which can operate bull-dozers, excavators and large trucks used in the mining and building industries as efficiently as current diesel-operated machines.
Therefore, if we wish to reduce CO2 emissions by adopting more expensive but cleaner energy, we inevitably will produce less and our material standard of living will fall proportionally.
Now, hand up! all those who are prepared to accept a significant reduction in their material wealth!
Side step reality...
Dear Anonymous,
Many of your points are indeed true - our transportation industry is (almost) totally reliant on crude oil. The most widely accepted alternative fuel source (ethanol - from corn and sugar) has the insurmountable problem of volatility due to climatic variability and instability - which according to the latest science will be worsening. This is not to mention the land under food crops, which growing for fuel and transportation, would displace. Or bringing into the CO2 equation the actual production of the raw feedstocks.
I live in hope, and it is my view that the transition point for retooling our mechanical transportation is not past. Retooling for solar rail is the only viable transportation alternative i can see... this will be costly and infrastructure expansion and building needs to start immediately.
It is my view that a large percentage of Australia's remaining and finite resources should be allocated for this task. Can you give me accurate and reliable figures to show that i am wrong? If so, please do, that sort of information must be shared to the general public.
Unfortunately, hydrogen conversion for transportation usage remains experimental (as far as i am aware).
Obviously Australia's current leaders (and those of the USA) feel that remaining on the road well travelled via continual theft of natural resource fields is an much easier alternative ... hence oil wars.
Whilst the superpowers tussel over the riches and control petrol prices at the bowser, society pays the price (or stops), whilst our climate becomes more and more unstable.
As far as "undoable" and "an unspeakable fraud" i think you need to take your blinkers off.
There are many proven clean alternatives.
visit "Way Forwards" to learn of just a few...
http://globalclimatechangeaction.org/ways_forward
:-)
and never underestimate humankind's intelligence in "survival mode".
Post new comment