Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Will a Multi-Million Dollar Contest Be the Answer to Global Warming?

By Kelpie Wilson, TruthOut.org. Posted February 22, 2007.


Sir Richard Branson is offering $25 million for anyone who can invent new technologies to get carbon out of the atmosphere. But his contest might do more harm than good.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Like most American kids in the 1960s, I was an avid Star Trek fan and I rooted for every new development in the U.S. space program. I'll never forget staying up past midnight to watch Neil Armstrong take Man's first steps on the moon.

But by the time of the first shuttle disaster in 1986, I was less concerned with the Star Trek mission and more concerned with the fate of the Earth. Apart from the human tragedy of the disaster, the setback to the space shuttle program didn't seem to matter much, and the image of the Challenger flameout at 48,000 feet over Florida seemed symbolic of the utter failure of Western society to create a sustainable civilization on Planet Earth.

The recent release of the IPCC's fourth assessment on climate change is just one more milestone documenting the disintegration of Earth's planetary life-support systems. The world must act quickly, but I am not impressed by the announcement last week that Sir Richard Branson, founder of a company that is building a fleet of excursion vehicles for the space tourism market, has offered a $25 million prize for the invention of new carbon-sequestration technologies.

Branson's space travel company, called Virgin Galactic (in line with his other ventures, Virgin Media, Virgin Trains and Virgin Airways), is building five suborbital spacecraft based on Burt Rutan's X-Prize winning design, SpaceShipOne. Tourists will pay about $200,000 a ticket to spew greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere and enjoy an hour of bouncing around in microgravity. Presumably, it was the success of the X-Prize competition in producing this space toy that inspired Branson to offer the carbon-sequestration prize, which he calls the Earth Challenge. Sadly, Branson's prize may do more harm than good.

There are two big problems with the Earth Challenge prize. First, and most important, it sends the wrong message to those who are just waking up to the true threat of climate change: it says we can solve this problem by inventing the right techno-fix. Branson himself said it at his news conference announcing the prize: "Man created the problem; therefore Man should solve the problem."

If "Man" is about to jump in and fix the carbon problem, then we'll all be able to carry on with business as usual, right? Yikes! If this perception becomes widespread, then there will be no motivation to change our wasteful habits. We can relax, because we have plenty of coal in the ground and our techno-heroes will find a way to capture and store those pesky carbon molecules out of the way somewhere.

Encouraging complacency is one problem. Then there's the problem that any techno-fix solution big enough to make a difference has the potential for dangerous unintended consequences of planetary magnitude.

Ideas like pumping CO2 deep into the ground or the ocean may sound promising, but can create new disasters. For instance, the oceans have already been absorbing much of the CO2 generated during the fossil fuel era, and as a result, they are turning acidic. No one knows how much more acidic the oceans can become before the calcium shells of animals like clams and corals begin to dissolve.

We can also inject CO2 into old oil and gas fields and coal beds -- it is being done right now in Norway, Texas and Canada. But in order to be effective as a carbon-sequestration strategy, hundreds of underground reservoirs would need to be created and maintained.

Jeff Goodell, writing in his book Big Coal, says that each reservoir would spread out "fifty or so square miles underground, which means that if carbon sequestration does indeed become widespread, tens of thousands of people will be living above giant bubbles of CO2." Leakage is a problem, he says, "CO2 is buoyant underground and can migrate through cracks and faults in the earth, pooling in unexpected places." A 20 percent concentration of odorless CO2 can cause a person to lose consciousness in "a breath or two" and asphyxiate.

And here's an unintended consequence I have never heard discussed -- what happens to all of the oxygen in the CO2 molecules that get sequestered? When plants pull CO2 out of the air and use it to grow stems and roots, they recycle the oxygen back into the atmosphere. Are we in danger of burying a needful portion of our oxygen deep in the Earth?

Ultimately, Branson's Earth Challenge prize reflects the same attitude that got us into the climate crisis in the first place. It's a wet dream for engineers who now get to play with a whole planet, acting out their favorite science fiction scenarios. If they want to terraform a planet, I say send them to Mars, but don't experiment with the Earth.

In his landmark critique of Technological Man, The Time Falling Bodies Take to Light, historian William Irwin Thompson observes: "When we have moved beyond the desolation of all our male vanities, from the stock market to the stock pile of rockets, we will be more open and receptive. Open and bleeding like that archaic wound, the vulva, we will be prepared to receive the conception of a new civilization."

The truth is that we already have all the technology that we need to save ourselves. Most of the world does not drive cars, use air conditioning or fly in airplanes, let alone spaceships. Provide an African village with a few solar panels and they can have lights at night, and a refrigerator to store medicines. Add a satellite dish and a computer, and they have the world's knowledge and culture at their fingertips. If the environment around them is healthy, it can provide everything else they need for a good life -- water, food, clothing, shelter, musical instruments and the enjoyment of nature.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, richard branson, carbon sequestration

Kelpie Wilson is Truthout's environment editor. Trained as a mechanical engineer, she embarked on a career as a forest protection activist, then returned to engineering as a technical writer for the solar power industry. She is the author of Primal Tears, an eco-thriller about a hybrid human-bonobo girl. Greg Bear, author of Darwin's Radio, says: "Primal Tears is primal storytelling, thoughtful and passionate. Kelpie Wilson wonderfully expands our definitions of human and family."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Lord
Posted by: verite on Feb 22, 2007 1:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My God!
No comments.
Poor Branson, like Bliar, should have stayed in the pop. biz.
Now he is ripping up my stratosphere and indulging in some cultish faith that "science" can provide solutions to keep business as normal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lord Posted by: willymack
Thank You for Saying This
Posted by: bttl on Feb 22, 2007 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was both well written and important. I have been watching the "techno-fix" approach with much trepidation. Even people that I otherwise have a degree of respect for such as Amory Lovins have fallen into that trap, promoting his vision of "hyper-cars" and the like. It is I believe, a continuation of what got us into this fix in the first place; a desire to have what we want when we want it with utter disregard for the ultimate consequences, both to others and to our planet.

Some may take afront at this, but I'd say it's mostly a "male thing", this techno oriented approach to everything. As a woman, I have to admit that I consider most of the "built" world in which I live to be a somewhat alien place. I don't think most of it was designed or constructed by women- and I don't think that women would have created the world that people in industrialized countries live in had they been in charge. So perhaps that brings up the major problem- this problem(climate change) has been mostly caused by men- and it is the same men who are now attempting to "fix" it- with the same mindset that created it in the first place.

Whatever one might think about the Amish, and they are not by any means perfect, one thing that I respect about them is that they consider every new technology in terms of the potential impact it would have on their society. We don't do that in any form; if a technology is created, we adop tit, period, and whatever the consequences are they are born by everyone, often those who never made use of this technology in the first place. Most of the world doesn't drive cars or fly, or even have access to electricity, yet they will be supremely affected by our addiction to these technologies.

I fear that we will proceed to do the same with our proposed "fixes" for carbon dioxide sequestration. We find unacceptable the notion of conservation and lifestyle change, we who have become so accostomed to getting whatever we want. We find it inconceivable that we might be asked to do without flying, park the car, cut back our power use, lower our consumption. So we are looking for the "techno-fix" to save us from that, without any concern for the ultimate consequeneces of this fix.

Unless we radically change our outlook on how we live and our responsibility to both others and the planet, we will only continue down this path with deadly consequences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kelpie once advocated ecologically-based birth control, but...
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Feb 22, 2007 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No more.

Maybe she caved in to political correctness. I don't know what else to attribute it to.

If you ever read the old (and then truly conservation-oriented) Earth First! Journal, you know what I mean. Kelpie used to write a column of comic genius called "Little Poo-Poo Head." (I thought of it a couple nights ago at a restaurant where this couple thought we all would be charmed by the frequent high-pitched shrieks of their baby.)

Anyway, the Earth First! Journal no longer is on the cutting edge of conservation biology; for the most part, anthropocentric leftists have taken over the movement, and only a few Earth Firsters! still seem to really appreciate why the founders of Earth First! chose that name in the first place.

Kelpie no longer writes for the EF! Journal, and though I don't know why, I'd guess she would prefer not to be associated with it.

I do miss Kelpie's "Little Poo Poo Head."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

correction / no going back
Posted by: wmoss2 on Feb 22, 2007 5:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author needs to take care here. Enemies of the environmental movement say that we are lead by hystericals pushing 'junk science'. I don't deny the claim that overconsumption is a major problem and cause of environmental decline, but this was not a good article.

The CO2 to be sequestered is the same CO2 that we have been liberating like mad from fossil fuels. The hope is to remove some of this excess (formerly inert) CO2 from the atmosphere. There is no threat to starving plants; we have plenty of CO2 to go around.

Also, the Oxygen that plants release as a waste product of photosynthesis originates in water; not CO2, which is converted into carbohydrates during the process. We are not going to suffocate.

You can't just toss scientific sounding, but false theories at the public! How can they trust you afterwards? There are serious threats from global warming, pollution, etc. These threats need to be made clear in an honest, level-headed manner. Global warming should not be considered a post millennium Y2K scare!

Otherwise, I'm annoyed at the author for presenting an impossible solution to environmental decline, while belittling efforts that have promise. Does anyone honestly believe that people will be content to live at the level of an African villager with a couple solar panels (even African villagers don't want to live like this)? Humans will never choose to give up basic material comforts (toilets, ovens, heat, internet, etc.). They can be expected though, to give up crazy excessive luxury and to use more efficient technology.

I think people need to realize that there really is no going back to "simpler times". Our massive population only exists as a result of the high amount of energy we have been able to liberate (from fossil fuels). Industrial agriculture is based on this. We will never, ever, be able to support our billions without intense inputs of energy. Most of the world's breadbaskets, would be pretty desolate without irrigation and chemical fertilizers. Unless, you're willing to kill off or sterilize most of humanity, we're stuck with modern technology. We are not, however, stuck with inefficient and damaging technology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Basic Chemistry Posted by: benzene
» Basic(er) Chemistry Posted by: wmoss2
» RE: Basic Chemistry Posted by: wmoss2
» RE: Y2K Posted by: ScottP
» RE: correction / no going back Posted by: Logic's Edge
No need for contest - Just Grow Hemp!
Posted by: LizFun on Feb 22, 2007 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I loved the X-Prize! I'd wondered for decades why millionaires weren't flying to the moon regularly. But this new prize seems pointless. Why invent something to take CO2 out of the air when the Hemp plant can very rapidly do that and so much more!

In addition to CO2, hemp can draw heavy metals out of our soil; replace fossil fuels (no more wars for oil!); it can be substituted for fiberboard, paper, insulation, plastic polymers - anything that's not combusted (because hemp plants store the heavy metals removed from the soil in their stalks). Hemp is also an extremely nutritious food source loaded with protein and essential fatty acids and all 8 of the essential amino acids which our bodies do not manufacture. Birds live 20% longer and healthier when they eat hemp seed!

Furthermore, cannibis (hemp + THC) is a brochodialator, an antibiotic, an immunosuppressant, an anticonvulsant, an analgesic and it is anti-inflamatory. All this, plus growing hemp and/or cannibus would create jobs in all of the above industries!

Okay Richard - send me my $25M prize (I could use the money to overturn anti-hemp laws) and come up with a new fun contest - I've been wanting one of those Star Trek Replicators. Sure, it's great for food and beverage, but I want one that replicates fashion!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Article Is Weird....And What's Wrong With Alternet?
Posted by: MarcGarvey on Feb 22, 2007 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone see the Equifax ad on the side of this page?

A white woman is saying to a man: "I'm finding out if you're good."
The white man replies with surprise: 'Wha- What are you talking about(or something like that)".
The woman reveals her source of knowledge of good and evil: "I used Equifax.com" she says, "I'm good."

Hmm....I know most of what we call Western civilization believes poverty is a sin. Running s/t ads like this, does Alternet now agree?

Equifax.com decides who is good?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You got Equifax? Posted by: eddie torres
Oxygen Squestration
Posted by: don_alejandro on Feb 22, 2007 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems to me that before we became addicted to fossil fuels carbon had been nicely sequestered by nature, in the form of coal and oil buried safely in the ground. What the energy industry disingenuously refers to as “carbon sequestration” would more accurately be called “oxygen sequestration” since the net result of digging up coal, burning it, and sequestering CO2 is the removal of oxygen from the atmosphere. See "Carbon Sequestration" Just Pseudo-Science Doublespeak

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What to do with CO2? Posted by: benzene
Branson's prize -- the mother of all ironies.
Posted by: DougScott on Feb 22, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How ironic (and potentially tragic) is it that Branson, owner/operator of a global warming machine -- jet-fueled aviation transports -- would offer an incentive to undo the damage he is causing.

Sounds like a publicity stunt to me.

Hugh E. Scott, retired Continental Airlines captain and creator/editor of www.King-George.biz – the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kelpie
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Feb 22, 2007 7:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And here's an unintended consequence I have never heard discussed -- what happens to all of the oxygen in the CO2 molecules that get sequestered? .... Are we in danger of burying a needful portion of our oxygen deep in the Earth?

LOL that's pretty funny. I'm guessing the reason you've never heard it discussed is because it's absurd. We're not going to bury CO2 into the ground. My gawd. lol. (We're not that stupid... and neither is Branson...least I hope not.) So you don't have to worry about what happens to all the poor little O2 molecules!

Ultimately, Branson's Earth Challenge prize reflects the same attitude that got us into the climate crisis in the first place. It's a wet dream for engineers who now get to play with a whole planet, acting out their favorite science fiction scenarios.

This is just plain ignorance. The idea that science has caused all or ANY of our problems is the worst form of low brow dumbed down naive stupidity.

We're not in this mess because of some mad scientist somewhere. We're in this mess because people choose to talk about paris hilton instead of being civically responsible. We choose to watch american idol, rather than go down to the local town hall... so wtf do you expect to happen?

When the [censored] hits the fan, some people go on crusades or witchhunts against all things science, and that only makes the problems ten times worse!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oxygen Posted by: gellero
» RE: Kelpie Posted by: Logic's Edge
If Branson was wise, he wouldn't be another robber baron
Posted by: ScottP on Feb 22, 2007 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This idea that robber barons are leaders to follow is the greatest folly of our time. Wise people wouldn't be in his position in the first place. You'll find wise people wearing sandals in science centers, wearing white coats in hospitals, wearing guitars at shows, but not wearing ties in business meetings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» don't be envious Posted by: gellero
» Idiotic Posted by: gellero
IS CONTEST ANSWER TO GLOBAL WARMING
Posted by: pfm on Feb 22, 2007 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One can easily assail the notion that any mega-dollar contest may not be the answer to global warming. It may only be one of many devices to arouse and sustain awareness on the part of an American citizery which is addicted to quick, short, immediate gradification. I see it merely as another arrow in the quiver which can be used to achieve a goal .... that being universal awareness of the long term implications of man's continuing contribution to global warming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gimme gimme gimme
Posted by: eddie torres on Feb 22, 2007 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The core equation:

Capital = Ownership + Labour

In 30 years, it will look like:

Survival = Food + Water

Where's my prize, Branson?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Deadly belches of CO2
Posted by: misfire on Feb 22, 2007 9:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Speaking of the risks of storing the gas underground, anybody see the recent show on NGC about the lakes in Africa that occasionally belch CO2 and kill every animal in the area? One such event killed 1800 villagers. Apparently natural springs of carbonized water exist in the region. When they come up under a deep lake, a deep layer of CO2 saturated water forms, and the gas is kept in solution by the high pressure. A big rockslide or something can jar it loose like popping the lid off of a shaken soda bottle, resulting in mega-tsunamis and deadly gas clouds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

STOP PLAYING GAMES. LEGALIZE HEMP AND SUBSIDIZE SOLAR, WIND, GEOTHERMAL, HEMP !!
Posted by: maxpayne on Feb 22, 2007 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are these authors messed up or what?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Art Glick
Posted by: artglick on Feb 22, 2007 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it that no one (and I mean NO ONE) talks about the only real solution to the problem - population control?

ANY technology/lifestyle is sustainable in the right numbers!

It's not so much the burning of fossil fuels per se that causes the problem, it's the AMOUNT of fossil fuels being burnt that's the problem!

Why isn't this part of the discussion?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Art Glick Posted by: kitty1967
» RE: Art Glick Posted by: JohnF
» RE: Art Glick Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Art Glick Posted by: JohnF
» RE: Population Posted by: LizFun
» RE: Population Posted by: JohnF
» Oops, need to add... Posted by: JohnF
» And one more item Posted by: JohnF
Stop looking to our "leaders" for solutions – WE are the solution.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 22, 2007 9:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A wonderful article, with a touch of poetry – and an important truth in the following sentence:

"The truth is that we already have all the technology that we need to save ourselves."

Exactly!

What we lack is the will (for industry, say: "profit motive") to actually use them. In fact, the breathless exposure of new, environment-saving technology has been the precise reason why we have NOT tackled environmental or overpopulation problems to any effective degree. These new technologies, served up to the population as bromides with a side order of platitudes, promote complacency because of the promise of painless solutions being "just around the corner."

Well, we are now around that corner, and we see that our situation has significantly worsened while at the same time, the wizz-bang technologies still languish in somebody's laboratory; but yet, we are STILL seduced by the techo-carrot out there on the end of the corporate stick – a carrot the industrial complex never intended us to have.

We've fallen for this ruse so many times for so long that we've forgotten our common sense. Maybe what we need is another form of the mass advertising we respond to like Pavlovian dogs: advertising to remind us how unfulfilling and even boring lusting after ever more material goods can be; advertising to remind us that caring for one's fellow man, and simplifying one's life in order to be more aware of the miracle that is our existance, can be THE MOST fulfilling activities in life. We still have the capacity to understand these things and to live lives consistant with them; we just need to be prodded out of our consumer-culture induced coma.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You're darned if you do and darned if you don't!
Posted by: chugach3Dguy on Feb 22, 2007 12:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one of those sad articles that boldly underlines what I consider to be the biggest problem in this whole climate change fiasco.

Now, I consider myself to have a fairly clear grasp on both sides of the climate change issue, and I'm surprised I haven't seen more posts regarding this simple fact:

Nothing will ever be accomplished if both sides only give knee-jerk reactions and frantic, unrealistic solutions to each other.

One humongous issue on the big list is that the climate-change activists say we need to drastically change our lifestyles as Americans in order to have an impact. Many of these changes cause general alarm because its going to cost a TON of money in areas that are risky for investors. And, as much I personally don't like some of the aspects of capitalism and business, that's just how it works. People are just too darn greedy and afraid of change. So, because people are afraid to spend money, some billionaire comes out and puts a carrot in front of us to entice the masses to come up with something to help solve one of the problems we as humans face. And in the Western world, money is the only thing that will motivate people. I think its a great idea- the hopes of getting 25 million bucks AND possibly the notoriety and fame for developing some new technology or method to help our planet fare better should be welcomed with open arms.

Its simple- people don't want to study or invest in new technology because it costs too much-so somebody with gobs of money threw a bone out there to help motivate people.

Or perhaps most people would like to see the alternatives? From the author's own words, it appears that there are those self-defeatists that don't really want anyone to do anything so they can spout off about how right they were in the end. Why on Earth would you bash an idea that could be a catalyst for a big step in the right direction when it hasn't even had a chance yet? The point of the matter is that people are trying.

The reason why I become angry at articles like this is because I see groups of people demonstrating or writing about how "THIS IS THE END AND WE NEED TO CHANGE NOW OR ELSE EVERYBODY DIES!". They wave their arms and raise quite a fuss. And then- when someone comes up and says "Hey! Look! I found something that might help a little- or a lot!" - these SAME people waving their arms come down like a hammer and say "NO WAY- that's not going to work and that's a STUPID idea."

On the other hand, its almost humorous because most of these "progressive" thinkers and the like become very close-minded when other people come up with ideas that differ from theirs. I always thought that in order to BE progressive, one must "progress"- to consider and adapt to new ideas and methods and work to rid themselves of the inherent fear of change.

Unfortunately, from my experiences it seems as though the vast majority of the people out there do not want to embrace that particular mode of thought. All we can really do is to work together and try to persuade them a little at a time to gradually change their habits and thinking. You're definitely NOT going to get results by going door to door or on TV and telling people that they're going to have to stop eating meat/stop driving their vehicle/turn their life upside down etc. because you said so while waving your arms and pointing to some graphs and charts.

Its one thing to not count one's chickens before they've hatched, but I think this post goes more along the lines of:Let's not crush the egg as soon as the chicken lays it, saying "Well, that one wasn't gonna make it anyway..." That's even more foolish and counterproductive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How Would You Do That?
Posted by: jseas on Feb 22, 2007 3:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The word "control" implies that someone will do the controlling. If population reduction is to be desired, I think there is a better way.

Yes, China is reducing its population by a one child policy, but it seems unlikely that less authoritarian govenments will impose such, though we may be headed to more authoritarian governments elsewhere.

But must we choose authoritarian governmental systems to do this?

In most LDC's, people have large families because that's their old age insurance. Increase their feeling of financial security and you reduce this pressure WITHOUT command and control.

How do you rapidly increase general wealth on the planet without despoiling the environment? A new book, forthcoming this year, has some answers: Of Human Wealth, New Monies for a New World by Bernard Lietaer and Stephen Belgin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How Would You Do That? Posted by: xgroverx
THEORY
Posted by: gellero on Feb 22, 2007 3:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global Warming is still THEORY and not FACT. How did the 'mini ice age' occur ???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» THEORY?? Posted by: gellero
Good article: Branson and Al need scientific training
Posted by: dayahka on Feb 22, 2007 4:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Branson (and his cohort, Al Gore) assume unequivocally that
there is a stable climate system, that global warming is occuring, that it is bad, that humans cause it, that specifically CO2 emissions cause it, and that we can revert to a stable climate system by removing CO2 from the air. Every single one of these assumptions is false (or subject to amendment). There is and never has been a stable climate system; global warming may or may not be occuring; there may be adjustments being made by nature; warming may be good for some situations, so is not necessarily bad; humans may only contribute a negligible amount of CO2 to the air (that we should clean the air of oil-based products is another issue); the move of humans to change the topology of the Earth's surface (by, for example, cutting down forests to plant crops for cows, and by building huge urban systems) may have more to do with climate change than anything else. The IPCC notwithstanding, there is no definitive and certain correlation between cause and effect.

Branson is paying 50 million for flights into space by the well-heeled; but only 25 million (actually much less given the conditions) to "save" the Earth. Wrong priorities, I'd say. The whole Virgin Earth Challenge is a farce based on ignorance and greed--both of which need to be eradicated if we are to maintain a habitable planet.

The author of the article deserves thanks for criticizing a bad idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Terra Preta Soils Technology To Master the Carbon Cycle
Posted by: erich on Feb 22, 2007 9:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Terra Preta Soils Technology To Master the Carbon Cycle

Man has been controlling the carbon cycle , and there for the weather, since the invention of agriculture, all be it was as unintentional, as our current airliner contrails are in affecting global dimming. This unintentional warm stability in climate has over 10,000 years, allowed us to develop to the point that now we know what we did,............ and that now......... we are over doing it.

The prehistoric and historic records gives a logical thrust for soil carbon sequestration.
I wonder what the soil biome carbon concentration was REALLY like before the cutting and burning of the world's virgin forest, my guess is that now we see a severely diminished community, and that only very recent Ag practices like no-till and reforestation have started to help rebuild it. It makes implementing Terra Preta soil technology like an act of penitence, a returning of the misplaced carbon to where it belongs.

On the Scale of CO2 remediation:

It is my understanding that atmospheric CO2 stands at 379 PPM, to stabilize the climate we need to reduce it to 350 PPM by the removal of 230 Billion tons.

The best estimates I've found are that the total loss of forest and soil carbon (combined
pre-industrial and industrial) has been about 200-240 billion tons. Of
that, the soils are estimated to account for about 1/3, and the vegetation
the other 2/3.

Since man controls 24 billion tons in his agriculture then it seems we have plenty to work with in sequestering our fossil fuel CO2 emissions as stable charcoal in the soil.

As Dr. Lehmann at Cornell points out, "Closed-Loop Pyrolysis systems such as Dr. Danny Day's are the only way to make a fuel that is actually carbon negative". and that " a strategy combining biochar with biofuels could ultimately offset 9.5 billion tons of carbon per year-an amount equal to the total current fossil fuel emissions! "

Terra Preta Soils Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration, Lower CH4 & N2O, and 3X FertilityToo

This some what orphaned new soil technology speaks to so many different interests and disciplines that it has not been embraced fully by any. I'm sure you will see both the potential of this system and the convergence needed for it's implementation.

The integrated energy strategy offered by Charcoal based Terra Preta Soil technology may
provide the only path to sustain our agricultural and fossil fueled power
structure without climate degradation, other than nuclear power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well...
Posted by: GenErik on Feb 23, 2007 2:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found this article hard to follow. What did the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster have to do with creating a sustainable economic system? Why are people so eager to assume that there is no technological answer to the climate change crisis?
I'm all for radical political reform and moving far, far away from the material, over-consumption culture that the west has become. I'm all for re-organizing communities so that cars and long-distance shipment of goods is no longer equitable. I'd like to see small-scale communities that are sustainable and self-governing. However, lets not assume that science has nothing to offer at this point.
The reason that we are in this mess is not because technology has failed--its because policy, large-scale corporations and nations have allowed the situation to spiral out of control. Technology isn't 'bad'. Technology is just something that can be used or misused.
Criticize Branson all you want but I wish that more ultra-rich people were at least trying to be part of the solution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

nearly free solution
Posted by: beelzeblob on Feb 27, 2007 5:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how about this crazy idea: the most efficient form of CO2 absorbtion is the most obvious, therefore probably the most overlooked, vegetation. plants absorb CO2 and turn it into oxygen and water. maybe, if humans stop cutting down every green thing that gets in their way we could just let plants get on with the work they are intended to do, and which coincidently takes care of our CO2 problem. the caveat to all this is that we would have to reduce CO2 production to a fraction of what we produce now and we'd have to replant most of what we cut down. sure replanting would be expensive but at least life beyond the simpler forms would survive and the world would be a lot prettier than it is now. perhaps there is a high tech fix to the problem, all power to those with the desire to research it, i hope there is a high tech fix. but the world can't wait.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

objective
Posted by: objective on Mar 8, 2007 7:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of dissing the precious few people on earth who are TRYING to do SOMETHING, shouldn't we be advocating simple energy conservation measures in ALL of our communications and DEMANDING that our "representatives" (i.e. openly corrupt Corportists and Imperialist WAR CRIMINALS) stop providing massive tax breaks for gas hog vehicles and corporate welfare to the mega-monopolies who have stolen the world's resources from the People of Planet Earth and are studiously GOUGING US as them sell them back to us?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

pharma
Posted by: vados on Mar 13, 2007 11:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
xanax
Posted by: vados on Mar 17, 2007 6:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
pharma
Posted by: vados on Mar 17, 2007 6:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
xanax
Posted by: vados on Mar 17, 2007 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]