How feasibly can we actually drop our global CO2 production?
I hate talking about global warming - its boring, cliche, and largely depressing, because any careful thinking about it invariably leads to the conclusion that the only true solution, if climate change models based on CO2 are correct, is a mass human extinction event, or exodus (to other planets); your child is a much greater environmental nightmare than your Hummer H2 is.
If our primary objective as a species is a global reduction in happiness and development inequalities, allowing global population growth to continue apace is totally counterproductive. And that’s a sad thought, and one that may motivate a global terrorism movement far worse than Al Qaeda.
But take a look at this graph (source: McKinsey). It estimates the cost and effectiveness of the various proposed things society can do to bring emissions down. On the left, the negative y axis values show that we save a lot of money and abate CO2 emissions, with certain strategies like insulating our houses and offices. To the right, expensive strategies. It’s clear from the graph that the real gains to be made (measured as progress along the x axis) are in this economically costly zone.
The worst part: even with all known strategies pursued, we still hit the dangerously (*according to current climate models) high levels of 450ppm by 2030.
I’d like to be able to play with the graph and generate data based on different population and oil price forecasts. Their assumptions aren’t clearly stated, disappointingly. This link offers a modest amount of skepticism regarding this graph, and highlights some further insights it gives us, alongside some auxiliary information about the bang-for-buck of different climate change prevention schemes.
Related:
- Your food has… software?!
- Thought for the day: the genome of a cell is its software. “Mad” scientists like CJ. Venter are already finding out how to ‘install linux’ on bacterial ‘hardware’ by swapping out its own chromosome with that of another bacteria, or even a man-made chromosome. And for some time now we have been editing the software of many cells out there: adding anti-pesticide genes, swapping out some genes to put in drought-resistant ones to help prevent famine in Africa and to deal with climate change, and in the lab it’s a daily occurrence, making certain proteins in bacteria ‘glow’ under UV light (so you can track them as they move around) by pasting in some code that we took from a squid’s software, or that of a firefly. Meanwhile, machines to synthesise DNA (put together the long strings of A, T, G, C nucleotides in specific order) - i.e. to ‘burn the code on a cd rom’ - are getting smaller, more accurate and more affordable. It may not be long before they’re the size of a desktop printer. ————- Imagine, if you will, a future in which more of your food is grown by you - apart from animals, which...
- iPlayer; licence fee subsidies
- The ISP industry sez: People use the iPlayer . The iPlayer has massively boosted the average Internet consumption of those people as they watch more video than ever. This is costing ISPs money . If the BBC doesn't give the ISPs the money to match this marginal cost, or BT doesn't reduce the cost of renting extra copper pipes from them, their margins will go down . This means they have to pass the cost onto the end user, you and me. Ashleigh Highfield, at the BBC, slaps their outstretched hand, but others at the BBC suggest a BBC-sponsored hardware rollout to help the ISPs cope. If the cost is passed onto the end user, i.e. my ISP fee every month goes up, as a result of a project I have already paid for by my annual TV license, isn't BT costing me money once for the license, and then every month for providing the iPlayer to the UK population, whether I personally use it or not? Is this double-taxing for the iPlayer fair (irrespective of whether I use it)? What's the solution?...
- Innovation - a subtle disease?
- I just posted a reply to Umair Haque’s question over at the Harvard Business Review: “Is sustainability the long-overdue nemesis of the innovation fever that’s gripped boardrooms for the last decade” As a trained molecular biologist, I spent 4 years at Oxford studying the basic systems supporting life, and much of my extracurricular reading is focused on the questions of ‘what makes systems work’ (I especially like discussion of the emergent properties of systems - when 2+2=5, like how a billion little neurons zipping electric charges around can lead to a complex, sentient, singular identity - Phil. Little surprise, then, that my answer - which disagrees with Umair’s hypothesis - is based on biology, ecology, and broader discussion of micro, macro, static and dynamic equilibria in systems! I disagree - if we learn anything from biology and ecology, it’s that innovation and change are ESSENTIAL components to sustained function of any system. Consider forest fire - destructive, mass extinction (at the local level) events that to the bystander, caught in the moment, causes nothing but anguish and worry about the ecosystem going up in flames. But in every attempt to create a savanna, one lesson keeps coming back: fire is...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Add New Comment
Viewing 1 Comment
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Add New Comment
Trackbacks
(Trackback URL)