Archive for the 'Global meltdown' category

400 ppM CO2 Irrelevant

May 11 2013 Published by under Bitcoin, Global meltdown

There are multiple people on my Twitter timeline mentioning the fact that CO2 levels have passed 400 ppM for the first time. Let’s just point to this well informed and interesting explanation by Peter Gleick on Scienceblogs, titled “The Last Time Atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per Million Humans Didn’t Exist“.

As Gleick explains, 400 ppM means an ice-free Arctic, average temperatures up between 3 and 4 degrees Celsius, and over 10 degrees at the poles, sea levels between 5 and 40 meters higher.

So why do I think this is irrelevant?

The answer is easy.

Anyone paying attention knew a long time ago that we will reach 400 and blow right past it. The fine people at 350.org want humanity to keep CO2 levels under 350. That is not likely to happen any time soon.

To explain this with a little comparison to Bitcoin, it didn’t matter much if the price was at $2 or at $5 some time in 2011. It was always sure to go way up anyway (it is around $110  now).

The one thing that matters most is if humanity somehow will be able to avoid the positive feedback spiral leading to Venus syndrome. This question has only two possible answers.

In contrast, assuming stabilizing at some level or other of global warming, that is a question of degree. While much would change, there would still be at least some life left on the planet, possibly even human life.

For all of that, blasting through 400 ppM is not ever so important. The real fight will come in the next couple of decades.

 

One response so far

Print More Money For Renewable Energy

May 10 2013 Published by under European and German energy law, Global meltdown, Phaseout Profit Theory

This is a follow-up to yesterday’s post “Print Money for Renewable Energy”, which discussed Adnan Al-Daini’s proposal to use “quantitative easing” as a source of finance for renewable energy.

I neglected to mention Al-Daini’s newer article on the question, which was published with the title “Climate Change: Governments Must Act To Reduce CO2 Emissions” at Huffington Post on May 6.

There he addresses two potential problems with this idea.

For one, people might object because this causes inflation. Al-Daini counters that the risk of inflation is minor compared to the risk of global warming. He says that inflation may not happen, since the GDP will be boosted as well as the money supply. And he says that without printing money, he expects that nothing will happen.

The other objection would be that this kind of government action is undesirable. Things should be left for the markets to figure out.

I partly agree with that objection. The Phaseout Profit Theory I am preaching all the time on this blog says that the global warming problem will be solved easily and quickly once the fossil fuel companies (and the climate activists) understand that reducing the supply of fossil fuel increases fossil fuel companies’ profits. High prices for fossil fuel would solve the problem.

But on the other hand, there is no such thing as a free market for energy. Most of it is decided by regulation. And subsidies. The idea that energy policy is decided mainly  by free markets is not based in reality.

Anyway, I don’t agree with these objections. And here are a couple of other thoughts to support the original proposal (print money to pay for renewable energy).

For one, Central Banks can print money. They can’t print Arctic ice, once it is gone.

Anyone understanding the scale of the damage expected from global warming should agree that we need to do whatever is possible. If this is one simple way to find a couple of trillion dollars a year for speeding up the transition to renewable energy, anyone objecting is making climate change worse. There is no need to make it worse. It will be a disaster anyway.

Another point: In the long run, transition to renewable energy faster will always be cheaper. Printing the money now and getting rid of fossil fuel a couple of decades earlier will save a fortune in fuel costs down the road. And it will of course reduce the damages from global warming.

One response so far

Print Money for Renewable Energy

May 09 2013 Published by under European and German energy law, Global meltdown

Germany has been very successful with its feed-in tariff. It has deployed a lot of solar. And brought down prices for everybody in the process.

Now Adnan Al-Daini proposes a different way to finance renewable energy. In this article published at Huffington Post in February he calls for printing money and investing it in renewable energy. The number he mentions is GBP 375 billion, which is what the Bank of England has spent on “quantitative easing” (buying government bonds on the secondary market with newly printed money).

GBP 375 billion government spending for renewable energy would be a considerable sum. It would be more than half of last year’s United Kingdom budget, which had expenditure of GBP 682 billion.

I am all for it. As long as there are feed-in tariffs as well, there is nothing wrong with the government investing massively in renewable energy. That is especially true for military spending.

I recall that in the United States the Pentagon is a large investor in renewable energy. They spent around $680 billion in 2011 (the whole budget, not the spending on renewable, which is only projected to reach a measly $10 billion by 2030). The main purpose of that spending is to feed the large military contractor industry. The secondary purpose of that spending is to provide security.

Since global warming is the most serious threat to the security of any country, a large part of military budgets should be spent for renewable energy, on top of current (largely useless) spending for weapons. Sell some “renewable bonds” to get the money. And then have your central bank print money and buy those bonds.

Once the military contractors understand that they can get the Pentagon budget to a trillion dollars a year this way, I expect them to support this kind of idea in their lobbying efforts.

One response so far

Book Review: Forty Signs of Rain, by Kim Stanley Robinson

May 02 2013 Published by under Book Review, Global meltdown, Tasneem

I found “Forty Signs of Rain” by Kim Stanley Robinson over the list “Climate Change Fiction” I recently started at Goodreads. Please consider adding to that list if you know of some fiction book with a global warming theme not yet on the list.

There is not much happening for most of the novel. Most of it is just everyday life. I think this is more “scientist fiction” than “science fiction”, since it largely deals with what scientists think and feel when doing their jobs.

The book doesn’t tell the reader when things are supposed to be happening, what year it is. Therefore it is very difficult to say how realistic the developments on climate change are.

Clearly the author had a crystal ball, since he named the large storm at the end of the book “Sandy”. Or maybe Kim Stanley Robinson actually came back in a time machine to write this.

This was written well, with no obvious holes in the plot. Even if there is not much happening, it was still interesting and pleasant to read.

I am looking ahead to reading the other two books in this series.

Link to my own global warming science fiction novel Tasneem (free PDF file).

No responses yet

Global Warming and Prostitution

May 02 2013 Published by under Global meltdown

Lucia Graves at Huffington Post reports about a new consequence of global warming I was not aware of until now.

Barbara Lee, a Representative from California belonging to the Democratic Party has introduced a resolution stating that poor women become more vulnerable as a consequence of global warming. From the resolution:

Whereas food-insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health.

This statement is probably correct.

On the other hand, this particular risk does not impress me as being the most serious one. Other catastrophic consequences of global meltdown are much more cause for concern.

But, human nature being as it is, this kind of statement will help bringing more attention to the issue.

 

No responses yet

Book Review: The Aviator, by Gareth Renowden

Apr 18 2013 Published by under Book Review, Global meltdown, Great News, Tasneem

“The Aviator” is a global warming science fiction novel by Gareth Renowden. I found it because of this review by Greg Laden at scienceblogs.com. I found that in turn because it is shows up next to my own global warming science fiction novel “Great News” (FREE PDF file) in a Google search with the keywords “global warming science fiction novel”. We are both on the top page there. :)

I liked this book and just gave it 5 stars at Goodreads. This is a cross post from Goodreads.

For one, I think that lighter than air travel will become much more important in the future, with less fossil fuel available. I have blogged about such things as the Aeroscraft game changing new technology.

I understood why the main character would have “Newman” as a name.

I did not understand, but learned with a little research, why one of the other characters would have “Kurzweil” as a name.

I am not sure I understand what “Cock money” is supposed to allude to. Or, to be precise, I am not ready to admit publicly understanding that particular reference.

The main story doesn’t have much of a direction. This book is more like a collection of individual shorter stories, like episodes of Star Trek. Nothing wrong with that.

One of my main interests is the idea of getting large-scale desert energy projects up to speed as a countermeasure to global warming. So I was very interested in reading the episode where Desertec comes into play. I learned from the book that building solar plants in the Sahara may actually be problematic because the desert may jump to Europe, and clouds may come to Northern Africa. That’s one aspect I hadn’t heard of yet.

Other aspects of how global warming will play out are described in a quite realistic way. The only problem I have is that there are some earthquakes. Those are obviously not related to global warming, a plot problem this book shares with the most harmful book in history (State of Fear).

I understand that there will be a sequel. I would like to read more about what people in the future are doing to counter global warming, and what their chances of success may be.

No responses yet

First Draft of My Second Global Warming Science Fiction Novel

Mar 30 2013 Published by under Global meltdown, Great News

Finished today. Now for some editing.

I am looking ahead to release it on this blog on April 17, exactly ten years and three months before the final deadline for CO2 peaking on July 17, 2023, 17:30.

Then again, I might change my mind and take ten years for editing. Post the thing on April 17, 2023 (that’s the year of the novel’s setting).

As I wrote about a week ago:

If CO2 emissions don’t peak until then, the feedback mechanisms will kick in and Earth will enter runaway climate change, global meltdown, leading to Venus syndrome.

Don’t ask me how I know that. It’s a secret. I can’t tell you right now.

I may be wrong. That would of course mean that humanity might peak out earlier than absolutely necessary. The real deadline may be 18:00, not 17:30.

But on the other hand, there would be nothing wrong with peaking out early. The stakes are high. You really want to avoid Venus syndrome. It is the equivalent of a large asteroid hit, wiping out all life. I for one think it would be a prudent course of action to peak out at the earliest possible point in time, and then reduce quickly, and then quickly start going negative, sucking all the mess up from the atmosphere.

Bonus link to my first global warming science fiction novel “Great News”, available as a FREE PDF file here.

 

No responses yet

David Roberts TEDX Talk on Climate Change

Mar 29 2013 Published by under Global meltdown

Posted without comment:

 

No responses yet

Final Deadline For CO2 Peak: July 17th, 2023, 17:30

Mar 21 2013 Published by under Global meltdown

If CO2 emissions don’t peak until then, the feedback mechanisms will kick in and Earth will enter runaway climate change, global meltdown, leading to Venus syndrome.

Don’t ask me how I know that. It’s a secret. I can’t tell you right now.

I may be wrong. That would of course mean that humanity might peak out earlier than absolutely necessary. The real deadline may be 18:00, not 17:30.

But on the other hand, there would be nothing wrong with peaking out early. The stakes are high. You really want to avoid Venus syndrome. It is the equivalent of a large asteroid hit, wiping out all life. I for one think it would be a prudent course of action to peak out at the earliest possible point in time, and then reduce quickly, and then quickly start going negative, sucking all the mess up from the atmosphere.

No responses yet

Phaseout Profit Theory

Mar 16 2013 Published by under Energy from the desert, Global meltdown, Phaseout Profit Theory

I have been writing quite a lot of posts about energy on this blog since the Fukushima accident. Many of those were just reacting to things other people said. Many others were just reporting on statistics. But some of them were introducing some own ideas.

The most important of those ideas did not have a name until this post. I am calling it “Phaseout Profit Theory” as of now.

For example, I have described it in this post titled “The simple solution for global warming” from last July, and in many others.

The basic argument is this:

If regulation forces fossil fuel producers to reduce the supply of their product, that will, all things equal, increase the price of oil, coal, and natural gas.

Increasing the price will lead to higher profits for them.

It will also lead to much higher valuations for the oil fields and other fossil fuel reserves they own. That alone will send profits through the roof, even before they sell the first barrel of oil.

So why does everybody assume that fossil fuel interests should be opposed to regulation bringing their production down? They should join forces with 350.org and Joe Romm, and start fighting for the privilege of selling much less.

That, in a very short summary, is the basic idea. I happen to think it is correct, and it would completely change the political landscape, if true.

So, here is a short name for this. “Phaseout Profit Theory”. A Google search for that returns nothing right now, which is good, since it means that there will be no confusion with something completely different this term has been already used for.

And, in one short sentence, it would be: Fossil fuel companies should fight for the privilege of selling much less, since that would increase their profits.

 

 

One response so far

Older posts »