I am my own grandpa (or grandma)?

Posted on by

Linda MacDonald Glenn is guest blogging this month.

Can nanotechnology be sustainable? At the site, Forumforthefuture.org, under the section Green Futures, Peter Madden argues that nanotechnology can contribute to sustainability. But the article doesn't sit well with me -- why? Not because I'm a technophobe -- I love technology (except when it doesn't work, then I hate it).

It bugs me because I can't tell what he means by sustainability.

Who or what is being sustained? Humanity? Our Environment? The Earth? The Nanobots? Self-sustaining technology?

And who controls or decides what be will be sustained?

Don't get me wrong -- I do think there is such a thing as Green Nanotechnology; in fact Springer has just started a Journal of Green Nanotechnology.

I just don't like to see sustainability used as a feel-good buzzword.

Several key principles have emerged to guide sustainability efforts, including intergenerational equity, integrating environmental, social and economic sectors when developing sustainability policies, and preventing irreversible long-term damage to ecosystems and human health.

The article does have one good point, though: In the end, it is how we decide to apply nanotechnology that will determine its true sustainability impact.

You can check out Linda's original blog at the Women's Bioethics Blogspot.

How Americans spent themselves into ruin… but saved the world

Posted on by

David Brin is a Sentient Developments guest blogger.

In the 1/1/24 edition of the Silicon Valley newspaper and online journal Metroactive, I have an editorial describing how the American consumer came to propel the export-driven development of Japan, Korea, Malaysia, China and now India. That process, spanning more than six decades, is almost always portrayed -- especially in Asia -- as having come about as a result of eastern cleverness, in catering to the insatiable material appetites of decadent westerners. But there is a far more interesting, complex, and even inspiring explanation for how the greatest wealth transfer of all time -- which has lifted several billion people out of poverty -- actually came about. I reveal how George Marshall and the United States chose, in 1946, to behave differently from any other "pax" empire, and thereby changed the world.

I'll now repost that essay here, in expanded form.

If your politics operate on reflex - from either left or right - you are likely to find something here that will offend. But please, dear fellow believers in tomorrow, bear in mind that I'm an internationalist who opposed jingo-chauvinists, all his life.

And yet, I feel it is long past time that someone spoke up in defense of Pax Americana.

The Far-Right's Caricature Version of Pax Americana

Sure, that phrase (PA) fell into disrepute during the era of the mad neocons, whose misrule left the United States far worse off by every clear metric of national health. During their time in near-total power, steering the American ship of state, fellows like Richard Cheney, Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman and their ilk made a point of proclaiming imperial triumphalism - exoling an America invested with sacred, perfect and permanent rights of planet-wide dominance, based upon inherent qualities that were said to be unaffected by any objective-reality considerations, like budgets or geography; like world opinion or the end of the Cold War; like science or technology; like rationality or morality or the physical well-being of our troops.

Indeed, the only factor that they felt might undermine America’s manifestly-destined and eternal preeminence could be a failure of will, should the wimpy liberals ever have their way. But if led with a firm-jawed determination to bull past all obstacles, the American pax could linger indefinitely, with all the privileges of governing world affairs and few of the responsibilities or cares.

Sure, it has been proper to oppose the policies of such deeply delusional men -- policies which unambiguously and uniformly brought ruin to the very things they claimed to hold dear. Capitalism, freedom, fiscal and national health, as well as U.S. influence in the world all plummeted under their rule. (These metrics all skyrocketed under Bill Clinton, whose endeavor in the Balkans was inarguably one of Pax Americana's finest hours.)

But The Left Goes Too Far The Other Way

And yet, something is very wrong with the unselective manner in which some folks on the other side have allowed those neocon nincompoops to define the argument. It is an unfortunate habit of the left to assume that any appreciation of the American contribution to human civilization must be inherently fascistic. This reflexive self-loathing has given (unnecessarily) a huge weapon to the right, in their ongoing treason-campaign called "Culture War," allowing them to retain millions of supporters who might otherwise have abandoned them.

By abrogating the natural human phenomenon of patriotic pride, these fools on the left have allowed guys like Sean Hannity to claim love-of-country as a sole monopoly of the right! If they get away with pushing simplistic “greatest nation ever” rants and portraying themselves as the implicit opposite of homeland-hating liberals, that gift comes gratis from the left.

Moreover, there is another reason for liberals to re-examine this reflex and to find good -- and even great -- things to proclaim about America. Because, without any doubt, America deserves it. Yes, self-criticism is a useful tonic, and there definitely were crimes committed, during our time on top. Nevertheless, the net effects of Pax Americana have been generally positive, compared against every single previous era in human history.

This can be proved, with just a single example -- one that was as decisive as it is ironic, and that has spanned an entire lifespan.

The Miracle of 1946

Mr. Wu Jianmin is a professor at China Foreign Affairs University and Chairman of the Shanghai Centre of International Studies. A smart fellow whose observations about the world well-merit close attention. Specifically, in a recent edition of the online journal The Globalist, Wu Jianmin's brief appraisal of "A Chinese Perspective on a Changing World" was insightful and much appreciated.

However I feel a need to quibble with one of his statements, which reflected a widespread assumption held all over the world:

"After the Second World War, things started to change. Japan was the first to rise in Asia. We Asians are grateful to Japan for inventing this export-oriented development model, which helped initiate the process of Asia’s rise."

In fact, with due respect for their industriousness, ingenuity and determination, the Japanese invented no such thing. The initiators of export-driven world development were two military and diplomatic leaders of Pax American at its very peak: George Marshall, who was Secretary of State under President Harry Truman and Gen. Douglas MacArthur, during his time as military governor of Japan, in the ravaged aftermath of the Second World War.

While Marshall crafted a historically unprecedented, receptively open trade policy called “counter-mercantilism” (I’ll explain in a minute), MacArthur vigorously pushed the creation of Japanese export-oriented industries, establishing the model of what was to come. Instead of doing what all other victorious conquerors had done – looting the defeated enemy -- the clearly stated intention was for the United States to lift up their prostrate foe, first with direct aid. And then, over the longer term, with trade.

(One might well add a third American hero, W. Edwards Deming, whose teachings about industrial process -- especially the importance of high standards of quality control -- were profoundly influential in Japan, helping transform Japanese products from stereotypes of shoddiness into icons of manufacturing excellence.)

Look, lest there be any misunderstanding, I am not downplaying the importance of Japanese, Korean, Malaysian, Chinese and Indian efforts to uplift themselves through the hard work of hundreds of millions who labored in sweatshops making toys and clothes for U.S. consumers. Without any doubt, those workers... (like the generations who built America, before 1950, in the sooty factories of Detroit and Pittsburgh)... and their innovative managers, were far more heroic and directly responsible for the last six decades of world development than American consumers, pushing overflowing carts through WalMart.

Nevertheless, those consumers —plus the trade policies that made the WalMart Tsunami possible, plus a fantastically generous and nearly unrestricted flow of intellectual capital from west to east — all played crucial roles in this process that lifted billions of people out of grinding, hopeless poverty. Moreover, it now seems long past time to realize how unique all of this was, in the sad litany of human civilization.

The Thing About Empires

Let's step back a little. First off, if you scan across recorded history, you'll find that most people who lived in agricultural societies endured either of two kinds of global situations. There were periods of imperium and periods of chaos. A lot of the empires were brutal, stultifying and awful, but at least cities didn't burn that often, while the empire maintained order. Families got to raise their kids and work hard and engage in trade. Even if you belonged to an oppressed subject people, your odds of survival, and bettering yourself, were better under the rule of an imperial "pax."

That doesn't mean the empires were wise! Often, they behaved in smug, childish, and tyrannical ways that, while conforming to ornery human nature, also laid seeds for their own destruction. Today, I want to focus on one of these bad habits, in particular.

The annals of five continents show that, whenever a nation became overwhelmingly strong, it tended to forge mercantilist-style trade networks that favored home industries and capital inflows, at the expense of those living in in satrapies and dependent areas.

The Romans did this, insisting that rivers of gold and silver stream into the imperial city. So did the Hellenists, Persians, Moghuls... and so did every Chinese imperial dynasty. This kind of behavior, by Pax Brittanica, was one of the chief complaints against Britain by both John Hancock and Mohandas Ganhdi.

Adam Smith called mercantilism a foul habit, that was based in human nature. A natural outcome of empire, it over the long run almost inevitably contributed to self-destruction. But alas, everybody did it, when they could. Except just once.

The Exception to the Rule of Imperial Mercantilism

In fact, there has been only one top-nation that ever avoided the addiction to imperial mercantilism, and that was the United States of America. Upon finding itself the overwhelmingly dominant power, at the end of World War II, the U.S. had ample opportunity to impose its own vision upon the system of international trade. And it did. Only, at this crucial moment, something special happened.

At the behest of Marshall and his advisors. America became the first pax-power in history to deliberately establish counter-mercantilist commerce flows. A trade regime that favored the manufactures of many foreign/poor countries over those in the homeland. Nations crippled by war, or by millennia of mismanagement, were allowed to maintain high tariffs, keeping out American manufactures, while sending shiploads from their own factories to the U.S., almost duty free.

Moreover, despite the ongoing political tussle of two political parties and sometimes noisy aggravation over ever-mounting deficits, each administration since Marshall's time kept fealty with this compact -- to such a degree that the world's peoples by now simply take it for granted.
Forgetting all of history and ignoring the self-destructive behavior of other empires, we all have tended to assume that counter-mercantilist trade flows are somehow a natural state of affairs! But they aren't. They are an invention, as unique and new and as American as the airplane, or the photocopier, or rock n' roll.

Why Did This Happen?

Now, of course, more than pure altruism may have been involved in the decision to create counter-mercantilism. The Democratic Party, under Truman, and Republican moderates, such as President Dwight Eisenhower, held fresh and painful memories of the Hawley-Smoot tariffs, instituted under Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress of 1930, which triggered a trade war that deepened the Great Depression. Both Truman and Ike saw trade as wholesome for world prosperity -- and as a tonic to unite world peoples against Soviet expansionism.

(Indeed, as another example of his farsighted ability to plan ahead for decades, Marshall also designed the ultimately victorious policy of patient containment of the USSR until, after many decades, that mad fever broke, for which he deserves at least as much credit as Ronald Reagan.)

Nevertheless, if you still doubt that counter-mercantilism also had an altruistic component, remember this -- that the new, unprecedented trade regime was instituted by the author of the renowned Marshall Plan — both a name and an endeavor that still ring in human memory as synonymous with using power for generosity and good. Is it therefore plausible that Marshall -- along with Dean Acheson, Truman and Eisenhower -- might have known exactly what export-driven development would accomplish for the peoples of Europe, Asia, and so on?

Cynics might doubt that anyone could ever look that far and that sagely ahead. But I am both an optimist and a science fiction author. I find it entirely plausible.

Alas No One Seems to Notice

Unfortunately, while recipients of the Marshall Plan's direct aid could clearly see beneficial results, right away, other parts of the program -- especially counter-mercantilist trade policy -- were slower in showing their effects, though they were far more vast and important, over the log run.

What they amounted to was nothing less than the greatest unsung aid-and-uplift program in human history. A prodigious transfer of wealth and development from the United States to one zone after another, where cheap labor transformed, often within a single generation, into skilled and educated worker-citizens of a technologized nation. A program that consisted of Americans buying continental loads of things they did not really need. Things that they could easily done without and stopped buying, any time that they, or their leaders, chose to call a halt.

(Oh, sure, the U.S would sometimes make a stink and nibble away at the edges of these unfair trade flows. But such efforts were never serious, intense, or undertaken with anything like full power or national will behind them. No plausible theory was ever raised, to explain that tepidness... until now.)

Yes, yes. There are a few obvious cavils to this blithe picture. One might ask -- does anyone deserve "moral credit" for this huge and staggeringly successful "aid program"?

Well, that is a good question. Perhaps not the American consumers, who made all this happen by embarking on a reckless holiday, acting like wastrels, saving nothing and spending themselves deep into debt. Certainly, even at best, this wealth transfer seems less ethically pure or pristinely generous than other, more direct forms of aid.

Moreover, as the author of a book called Earth, I’d be remiss not to mention that all of this consumption-driven growth came about at considerable cost to our planet. For all our sakes, the process of ending human poverty and creating an all-encompassing global middle class needs to get a lot more efficient, as soon as possible. Call it another form a debt that had better be repaid, or else.

Nevertheless, if credit is being given to the Japanese, "for inventing this export-oriented development model," then I think it is time for some historical perspective. Because the impression that one gets from many, especially in the East, is that the West must forever remain counter-mercantilist as if by some law of nature, and that the vigorously pro-mercantilist policies of the East are some kind of inherently perpetual birthright. Or else, these trade patterns are purely the result of asiatic cleverness, outwitting those decadent Americans in some kind of great game

This view of the present situation may feel satisfying, but it is wholly inaccurate. Moreover, it could lead to serious error, in years to come... as it did across centuries past.

What Might The Future Bring?

Even if America is exhausted, worn out and a shadow of her former self, from having spent her way from world dominance into a chasm of debt, the U.S. does have something to show for it the last six decades.

A world saved. A majority of human beings lifted out of poverty. That task, far more prodigious than defeating fascism and communism or going to the moon, ought to be viewed with a little respect. And I suspect it will be, by future generations.

This should be contemplated, soberly, as other nations start to consider their time ahead as one of potential triumph. As they start to contemplate the possibility of becoming the next great pax or "central kingdom."

If that happens -- (as I portray in a coming novel) -- will they emulate Marshall and Truman, by starting their bright era of world leadership with acts of thoughtful and truly farsighted wisdom? Perhaps even a little gratitude? Or at least by evading the mistakes that are written plain, across the pages of history, wherever countries briefly puffed and preened over their own importance, imagining that this must last forever?

Is Anybody Still Reading

Probably not. This unconventional assertion will meet vigorous resistance, no matter how clearly it is supported by the historical record. The reflex of America-bashing is too heavily ingrained, within the left and across much of the world, for anyone to actually read the ancient annals and realize that the United States is undoubtedly the least hated empire of all time. If its "pax" is drawing to a close, it will enter retirement with more earned goodwill than any other. Perhaps even enough to win forgiveness for the inevitable litany of imperial crimes.

But no, even so, the habit is too strong. My attempt to bring perspective will be dismissed as arrogant, jingoist, hyper-patriotic American triumphalism. That is, if anybody is still reading, at all.

Meanwhile, on the American right, we do have genuine triumphalists of the most shrill and stubborn type -- mostly moronic neocons -- who share my appreciation for Pax Americana... but for all the wrong reasons, and without even a scintilla of historical wisdom. Indeed, it is as if we are using the same phrase to stanf for entirely different things. If they are still reading, I can only point out that their era of misrule deeply harmed the very thing they claim to love.

Alas, my aim does not fit into stereotypical agendas of either left or right. Instead, I am simply pointing out the necessary sequence of causation events that had to occur, in order for the International Miracle of export-driven development, of the last sixty years, to have taken place at all. Indeed, it is the fervent, tendentious and determined denial, that American policy played any role at all, that beggars the imagination.

And so, at risk of belaboring the point, let me reiterate. If the U.S. had done the normal thing, the natural human thing, and imposed mercantilist trade patterns after WWII -- as every single previous "chung kuo" empire ever did before it -- then the U.S. would have no debt today. Our factories would be humming and the country would be swimming in gold...

...but the amount of hope and prosperity in the world would be far less, ruined by the same self-centered, short-sighted greed that eventually brought down empires in Babylon, Persia, Rome, China, Britain and so on.

Also, by this point, every American youth would be serving in armies of occupation, and the entire world would by now be simmering and plotting for the downfall of the Evil Empire. That is the way the old pattern was written. But it is not how this "pax" was run. Instead, the greater part of the world was saved from poverty by the same force that rescued it from the fascistic imperialism and communism.

Yes, America's era of uplifting the globe by propelling the world's export-driven growth must be over. Having performed this immense task, Americans cannot expect (if Wu Jianmin is any example) any credit or thanks.

But that is okay. Nobody needs to be angry and we certainly do not have to be thanked. It simply is done. Other dire problems now stand waiting for this much richer world to address them. And meanwhile, the U.S. must rebuild.

In other words, soon it will be time for someone else to start buying, for a change. The products, the services, and especially the ideas -- of which we will always have plenty.

New ideas, for a new century, when efficient production and care for the planet will combine with far-sighted mindfulness of generations to come. Ideas that – just like George Marshall’s – the world will need and want.

And just watch. America will be happy to sell.

==========

David Brin is a scientist, technology speaker, and author. His 1989 ecological thriller, Earth, foreshadowed global warming, cyberwarfare and the world wide web. A 1998 movie, directed by Kevin Costner, was based on The Postman. His fifteen novels, including New York Times Bestsellers and winners of the Hugo and Nebula awards, have been translated into more than twenty languages. David appears frequently on History Channel shows such as The ARCHITECHS, The Universe and Life After People. Brin’s non-fiction book -- The Transparent Society: Will Technology Make Us Choose Between Freedom and Privacy? -- won the Freedom of Speech Award of the American Library Association. come visit http://www.davidbrin.com.

Deus Sex Machina

Posted on by

[Linda MacDonald Glenn is guest blogging this month] (cross-posted on the Women's Bioethics Blog)

(Roughly translated from Latin as Sex God in the machine) We all know that technology can improve our lives (sometimes....well, at least when it's working properly), but who'd have thunk that nanotechnology could improve your sex life?

In yet one more 'tool' in the arsenal against dreaded erectile dysfunction, nanotechnology to the rescue! Scientists at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University have developed a foam with nanoparticles encapsulating nitric oxide for the topical treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED). Why is topical better? Because ED medications such as sildenafil , vardenafil, and tadalafil have limitations -- they can cause systemic side effects such as headache, facial flushing, nasal congestion, upset stomach, and abnormal vision. Might this have implications for Female Arousal Disorder for which there remains little, if any, treatment? One can only hope....perhaps the announcement of the new 'female viagra' for pre-menopausal women can benefit from this new delivery system.

On balance, though, Blue Cross Biomedical has developed a new foam condom for use by women, that looks like a vaginal inhaler. The Blue Cross Foam Condom uses a “formulated condom concentrate” comprised of nano silver particles as well as 'surfactant octyl phenoxy -RH4,tween-20, sapn-60,polyethylene glycol 400, deionized water'. Perhaps a male contraceptive can be advanced utilizing a nano-delivery system?

My humble request to scientists and researchers: Equal time for both sexes, please!

You can check out Linda's original blog at the Women's Bioethics Blogspot.

IBM’s claim to have simulated a cat’s brain grossly overstated

Posted on by

Blue Gene
This is not a brain.


I'm a big fan of IBM's Brain and Mind Institute (BMI) and the Blue Brain project. Initiated in May 2005, the Blue Brain project is an attempt to to model the mammalian cerebral cortex with computers. The intention is not to re-create the actual physical structure of the brain, but to simulate it using arrays of supercomputers. Ultimately, the developers are hoping to create biologically realistic models of neurons. In fact, the results of the simulation will be experimentally tested against biological columns.

But I take exception to the recent claim that IBM has created a simulation that is supposedly on par, in terms of complexity and scale, with an actual cat's brain. The media tends to sensationalize these sorts of achievements, and in this case, grossly overstate (and even misstate) the actual accomplishment.

Contrary to what some people may believe, IBM has not created a virtual cat. There's no simulated cat somewhere pouncing around simulated fields chasing simulated mice inside a supercomputer. All IBM has done is replicate the power of a cat's cebebral coretex using a bunch of powerful computers. Nothing more -- there's no psychological or AI element involved whatsoever. They're merely creating a physical power structure and computational infrastructure that may someday run a properly engineered mind.

But credit where credit is due.

IBM has made incredible progress in the sophistication and detail level of human brain mapping. By reverse engineering the human brain, IBM hopes to bring about the era of "cognitive computing," -- a development that would bring about new ways for building computers which mimic natural brain structures.

Essentially, IBM is hoping to simulate a neocortical column, which is the smallest functional unit of the neocortex. This is the part of the brain that is responsible for higher functions such as conscious thought. In humans, the neocortical column is 2mm tall, has a diameter of 0.5mm and contains 60,000 neurons. Project developers initially worked to replicate the neocortical column of a rat, which has only 10,000 neurons, and now they've achieved the same thing with the cat brain. Developers hope to model the human brain in about seven to eight years.

To model these components the developers use a Blue Gene supercomputer that runs the MPI-based 'Neocortical Simulator' combined with 'NEURON' software. Blue Gene is a computer architecture project that has will spawn several next-generation supercomputers -- computers that will reach operating speeds in the petaflops range, and are currently reaching speeds over 280 sustained teraflops. Its 8,000 processors will crunch away at 23 trillion operations per second.

I don't want to take away from IBM's accomplishment, but it's important to note that we are extremely far off in terms of our ability to emulate the true complexity of a mammalian brain. Creating an array of supercomputers that mimics the brute force of a biological brain and then claiming that it matches the 'complexity' and 'scale' of the real thing is pure hyperbole. True whole brain emulation (PDF) is still a far ways off.

Call 1-800-New-Organ, by 2020?

Posted on by

[Linda MacDonald Glenn is guest blogging this month]

Growing a set of new teeth, or new kidneys, or new eyes, or whatever it is you need, is something we could do as soon as 2020, according to a report that was issued by the Department of Health and Human Services a few years ago. In a follow-up to George's previous post, I'll be following and reporting on issues in regenerative medicine, with a focus on nano-scale materials and technology. The NIH uses the term 'regenerative medicine' interchangeably with 'tissue engineering' and defines it as "a rapidly growing multidisciplinary field involving the life, physical and engineering sciences that seeks to develop functional cell, tissue, and organ substitutes to repair, replace or enhance biological function that has been lost due to congenital abnormalities, injury, disease, or aging.” And researchers are doing amazing things: Gizmodo has posted videos from Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, about how lab grown tissues are benefiting patients now.

Regenerative nanomedicine will, understandably, likely be embraced for all the promise it holds -- but there have been concerns expressed about the ethical, legal, and social implications, particularity the nano part. Nanotechnology has the potential to have the greatest impact in three areas: energy, medicine, and environmental remediation. Of these three areas, nanotechnology in medicine is the most likely to be accepted by the public, starting with therapeutic treatments and then moving over to enhancements. But it does raise some interesting questions, such as can nanomedicine be considered separate and apart other nanotechnologies? And what does 'nanotechnology' encompass anyway? Pinning down a usable definition of nanotechnology has been harder than anticipated.

For a quick peek into some of the issues, you can check out the series of YouTube videos my colleague and I did at the Human Enhancement Conference in Kalamazoo earlier this year, which I'm hoping to post on Vimeo shortly. I'm also following Gizmodo's feature This Cyborg Life and am intrigued by the question, what is the enhancement that you would like to have the most? (and keep it decent, folks, comments are moderated here!) For the readers of Sentient Developments, I'll tell you mine, if you tell me yours....

You can check out Linda's original blog at the Women's Bioethics Blogspot.

Link dump for 2009.11.15

Posted on by

From the four corners of the web:

Linda MacDonald Glenn guest blogging in November and December

Posted on by

I'm pleased to announce that bioethicist Linda MacDonald Glenn will be guest blogging at Sentient Developments over the next four weeks.

Linda, who studied biomedical ethics at McGill University in Montreal, is a healthcare ethics educator, attorney-at-law and a consultant. She is an Assistant Professor at the Alden March Bioethics Institute, Albany Medical Center, a Women’s Bioethics Project Scholar, a Fellow at the Institute for Emerging Technologies and a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation. Linda also completed a fellowship at the American Medical Association Institute for Ethics.

Her research encompasses the legal, ethical, and social impact of emerging technologies, evolving notions of personhood and informed consent in public health research.

Linda has advised governmental leaders and agencies and she has published numerous articles in professional journals. Some of her better-known articles include "Biotechnology at the Margins of Personhood: An Evolving Legal Paradigm" in the Journal of Ethics and Technology, "Ethical Issues in Transgenics and Genetic Engineering" at Actionbioscience, "Keeping An Open Mind: What Legal Safeguards are needed?” in the American Journal of Bioethics, and "When Pigs Fly? Legal and Ethical Issues in Transgenics and the Creation of Chimeras".

She also is the Editor-in-Chief of the outstanding and progressive Women's Bioethics Blog.

With Linda onboard for the next four weeks we can be guaranteed some interesting and provocative content; I'm very much looking forward to Linda's posts.

Let’s get metaphysical: How our ongoing existence could appear increasingly absurd

Posted on by

So the Large Hadron Collider has been shut down yet again – this time on account of a bird dropping a piece of a bagel onto some sensitive outdoor machinery. The incident is not expected to keep the LHC out of commission for too much longer, but it represents yet another strange event that has kept the world’s most infamous particle accelerator out of service. In fact, the LHC has yet to function at full operational capacity since its completion over a year ago.

What makes this all the more interesting is that the Hadron Collider has been dubbed by some observers as a doomsday device on account of its unprecedented size and power. A minority of scientists and philosophers believe that the collider could produce a tiny black hole or a strangelet that would convert Earth to a shrunken mass of strange matter.

It's worth re-stating, however, that this is a fringe opinion. Several years ago, Max Tegmark and Nick Bostrom wrote a piece for Nature in which they concluded that a civilization destroys itself by a particle accelerator experiment once every billion years.

Okay, admittedly, one in a billion seems excruciatingly improbable. But not impossible. And it's this 'shadow of doubt' that has got so many people in a tizzy -- especially when considering that this so-called doomsday machine keeps breaking down. Seems awfully convenient, doesn't it? Are we to believe that this is mere co-incidence? Or is there something more to what's going on?

Now, I'm not talking about conspiracies or sabotage, here. Rather, a number of philosophers are making the case that something more metaphysical is going on.

Take, for example, the quantum immortality theory, which argues that you as an observer cannot observe your non-existence, so you will keep on observing your ongoing existence -- no matter how absurd. Aside from a large grain of salt, you also have to buy into the Everett Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics for this to work. As the universe splinters into probability trees, there are new trajectories that are forced into existence by your ongoing presence; in an infinite universe all observations must be made, no matter how improbable.

Now, at any given time we have to assume that we are living in the most probable of all possible habitable worlds. But that doesn't mean it's true -- it's just an assumption given the absence of sampling data. As quantum probability trees diverge, those that tread into more improbable spaces will begin to splinter with less and less frequency and diversity; there will be a limited number of escape routes given absurd and highly complex (but survivable) existence spaces.

All this can lead to some rather bizarre conclusions -- including the thought experiment in which you attempt to obliterate yourself with an atom bomb, only to have some kind of force majeure get in the way that prevents you from acting on your suicide.

It's important to remember that this only works for your ongoing existence. The rest of the world can burn around you; what matters is that you continue to observe the universe.

Okay, back to Hadron. Let's assume for a moment that quantum immortality is in effect and that the LHC is in fact the apocalypt-o-matic. It can therefore be argued that, because we are all collectively put into peril by this thing, we will never get to observe it working properly. There will always be something that prevents the device from doing what it's supposed to be doing -- everything from mechanical failures through to birds dropping bagels on it.

What's even more disturbing, however, is that these interventions could get increasingly absurd and improbable. It may eventually get to the point where we have to sit back and question the rationality of our existence. The world may get progressively screwed up and surreal in order for our personal existence to continue into the future.

One could already make the case that our collective existence is already absurd on account of our possession of apocalyptic weapons, namely the nuclear bomb. We've already come alarmingly close to apocalypse, including the Cuban Missile Crisis and the infamous Stanislav Petrov incident. Would it be unfair of me to suggest that we should probably have destroyed ourselves by now? I would argue that the most probable of Everett Many World Earths have destroyed themselves through nuclear armageddon, but we happen to observe a version of Earth that has not.

This said, our ongoing existence does not seem ridiculously absurd. There are rational and believable reasons that account for our ongoing existence, namely self-preservation and a rigid safety-check system that has prevented a nuclear accident from happening.

But will the same thing be said a few years from now if the Hadron Collider keeps shutting down? What will happen to our sense of reality if stranger and stranger things start to intervene?

And what about the more distant future when we have even more apocalyptic devices, including molecular assembling nanotechnology and advanced biotechnologies (not to mention artificial superintelligence)? It's been said that we are unlikely to survive the 21st Century on account of these pending technologies. But given that there are some probability trees that require our ongoing existence, what kind of future modes will that entail? Will it make sense, or will the succession of improbably survivable events result in a completely surreal existence? Or will our ongoing presence seem rational in the face of a radically altered existence mode -- like totalitarian repression or the onset of an all-controlling artificial superintelligence?

Hopefully I don't need to remind my readers that this is pure philosophical speculation. Metaphysics is often fun (or disturbing as in this case), but it is no substitute for science. I think we should think about these possibilities, but not to the point where it impacts on our daily life and sense of reality.

But I'm sure we'll all want to keep a close eye on that rather interesting particle accelerator in Switzerland.

Climate Scientist Gets Blunt on Trading Scheme

Posted on by

The Copenhagen climate summit got off to a big start on December 7th with many meetings and opening statements. Here is the COP 15 opening press briefing:

“COP 15 President Connie Hedegaard and UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer held a joint press conference on the opening day of the meeting.

Ms. Hedegaard spoke of an unprecedented political will to reach an agreement. With 110 Heads of State confirmed as attending the conference, she said there is a huge pressure on everyone to deliver not just a deal, but an ambitious deal in Copenhagen.  She emphasized the urgent need for such a deal to be reached here in Copenhagen, saying that we cannot send 110 Heads of State home to tell their populations that we couldnt make it.

Yvo de Boer stated that countries in the conference room this morning made clear their desire to deliver a strong and ambitious outcome in Copenhagen. I believe the conference will write history, but we must make sure it writes the right history, he said.  He underlined the need for ambitious commitments to cut and limit emissions, for immediate funding and for prompt action on the ground.”

See below for a strong message on the agreement NASA Scientist James Hansen is expecting from Copenhagen and how it needs to be improved.

A message from climate scientist James Hansen on December 7th:

“I published an op-ed in today’s New York Times on the deadly cap-and-trade fiasco (”Cap and Fade“) that conniving governments are attempting to foist on us to the detriment of our children and grandchildren. Their scheme, hatched in collaboration with Wall Street big banks, is a reprise of the Kyoto Protocol. Global emissions after Kyoto actually increased more rapidly (in real terms, percentage terms, and exponential rate of growth) than before. Even those few countries that reduced their emissions (and few did after “offsets” are eliminated) did so by exporting their emissions (and jobs) to developing countries (to make products exported to the developed countries). “

Sack Goldman Sachs Cap-and-Trade

The revolving door between Washington and Wall Street has produced a new scheme to fleece the public. “Cap-and-trade” is the heart of the Obama Administration’s plan to slow global warming and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Permits to emit a “capped” amount of carbon dioxide will be traded on Wall Street by big-time players like Goldman Sachs.

Cap-and-trade was anointed hero status for helping reduce pollution from power plants, specifically acid rain from the sulfur in coal. Seldom have accolades been less deserved. Indeed, this “success” story is a case of calling black white.

Here, in essence, is how it worked. Congress passed a law, Title IV of the Clean Air Act, capping sulfur emissions from power plants at 50 percent of 1990 amounts. Utilities reducing emissions more than half could sell excess reductions to other utilities, which then did not need to reduce pollution. Physical changes were simple. Many power plants switched to [...]

One Climate Change Editorial in 56 Newspapers, 45 Countries

Posted on by

The message: Time is up. This is how important the Copenhagen conference is.  From the Age of Stupid people:  “Congratulations to 10:10’s biggest fan, Ian Katz at the Guardian, who has pulled off a genuinely historic coup by persuading 56 newspapers in 45 countries to print the same editorial this morning, marking the start of Copenhagen. First time the world’s media has ever spoken with one voice. Almost… you’ve gotta love one US paper’s response to the suggestion that they join: “This is an outrageous attempt to orchestrate media pressure. Go to hell.” Hmmm, all the world comes together to agree climate text, except the US – where did we hear that before?”

Only two U.S. newspapers will publish the editorial, (that they know of) and one is Spanish-language: The Miami Herald, USA , and the El Nuevo Herald, USA in Spanish. What is wrong with American newspapers? American newspapers have become so politicized they are frightened to even print an editorial stating an opinion about a planetary problem that will affect us all. Pathetic.

Here is the Editorial in full. Pass it on and help make up for the awful state of American newspapers.

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species [...]

This Decade Will be Hottest Ever on Record

Posted on by

Decade of 2000s Will Be Warmest Ever, Scientists Say

It dawned with the warmest winter on record in the United States. And when the sun sets this New Year’s Eve, the decade of the 2000s will end as the warmest ever on global temperature charts.

‘CLIMATE INACTION COSTS LIVES’ — Using fire ladders, firemen and police attempt to arrest Greenpeace protesters who scaled the walls and draped a banner on the Parliament buildings in Ottawa, Monday December 7, 2009. (Photo/The Canadian Press/Fred Chartrand)

Warmer still, scientists say, lies ahead.

Through 10 years of global boom and bust, of breakneck change around the planet, of terrorism, war and division, all people everywhere under that warming sun faced one threat together: the buildup of greenhouse gases, the rise in temperatures, the danger of a shifting climate, of drought, weather extremes and encroaching seas, of untold damage to the world humanity has created for itself over millennia.

As the decade neared its close, the U.N. gathered presidents and premiers of almost 100 nations for a “climate summit” to take united action, to sharply cut back the burning of coal and other fossil fuels.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told them they had “a powerful opportunity to get on the right side of history” at a year-ending climate conference in Copenhagen.

Once again, however, disunity might keep the world’s nations on this side of making historic decisions.

“Deep down, we know that you are not really listening,” the Maldives’ Mohamed Nasheed told fellow presidents at September’s summit.   Read more here.

I feel sorry for the Maldives and every other beautiful island nation, but it’s too late for them already, even if we stop all CO2 emissions tomorrow.  There is a temperature build-up already in the atmosphere that will be there for a long time whether we continue to pollute any more or not and it will make the ice continue to melt and the oceans continue to warm. The Maldives need to relocate their people.

By the way, it’s now completely accurate to call CO2 pollution. Yesterday the EPA carried through on its endangerment finding on CO2 and other GHGs and said they are nasty stuff in high concentrations and have to be regulated. Watch out, Big Coal. The EPA is coming for you and millions of people are cheering them on.

Divide and Conquer

Posted on by

Determined to bring down the climate summit, the most important world meeting in history, the agents of dissolution and dissent are hard at work.   We suspect we know who they are, but we don’t know for sure. They might be politicians, they might be Big Oil, they might be oil exporters.  Real dissenters are welcome and necessary, but not the corporate ones. They are  trying to spread stories designed to break up the summit in Copenhagen and destroy the hard work already done so no climate deal is reached. It’s much bigger than “hackergate” (the illegally obtained and blown-way-out-of-proportion emails) now.  The dissension campaign is working on mainstream media, including the UK newspaper the Guardian.  It has fallen prey nearly completely to the dismal cynicism that a leaked plan by the US and the UK called the Danish Text is undermining the climate conference and on the brink of destroying it, already. Who leaked the text? Is it even real?  Andrew Revkin of the New York Times calls the Danish text a floating “trial balloon” and now it’s causing serious dissension in the ranks.

True, the text says the U.S. wants to basically ditch the Kyoto Protocol. But like the Tora Bora story, we knew this a long time ago.  The Kyoto Protocol has not worked as advertised, either. We do need a replacement for it.

The Guardian — Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak – has the whole story and they have made it as pessimistic as possible.

Repeat after me:  “All is not lost, and there is no reason to be completely depressed about this yet.”  Of course, we can all choose to be cynics and choose to think the worst.  It’s a hard habit to break. Maybe James Hansen will parachute in (with Al Gore?) and save the day.

Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN’s negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol — so says the depressing Guardian. They have taken the leaked information at face value and obviously have not been suspicious of this or its timing at all.  (I have read part of it, too. Where is the horrible part?  I can’t find it.)

How does anyone who reads this newspaper (and other similar news sources) prevent themselves from jumping off a bridge every day?  There is something (small) to be said for braindead, Tiger-Woods-obsessed media — it’s less likely to result in people committing suicide.

The media needs to remember, we can handle the truth. Just don’t make it sound far worse than it actually is.

• Read the ‘Danish text’
• In pictures: Copenhagen day two

Leave the Coal in the Hole!

Posted on by

Nigerian Environmentalist Nnimmo Bassey at Copenhagen: The Global North Owes a Climate Debt to Africa

Leave the oil in the soil. Leave the coal in the hole. Leave the tar sands in the land.

There are some great activist environmental speakers at Copenhagen, many I’ve never heard of until now.  One of Nigeria’s best-known environmental leaders, Nnimmo Bassey, is the founder of Environmental Rights Action in Nigeria, and he serves as the international chair of Friends of the Earth. He has campaigned against Shell Oil’s presence in the Niger Delta for nearly two decades. Last night he spoke at the opening of Klimaforum09. His forthcoming book is titled To Cook a Continent: Destructive Extraction and the Climate Crisis in Africa. See DemocracyNow’s interview with him here.

“Offsetting is upsetting.”  To paraphrase some of what he said:  Resist, Mobilize, Transform — these three key words that capture what we are looking for. Do you care about land grabs?  Now we are seeing sky grabs. All this grabbing is enough. This grabbing has to stop.  The issues of climate change and climate justice are important.

Also at issue according to Bassey:  REDD is bringing misery.  All the deforestation must be stopped.  You cannot buy a forest somewhere and manage it.  We need to change the way we behave, change the way we consume things, and begin to realize we have just one planet.

Why are countries such as the United States so resistant to the idea of paying poorer countries for the effects of climate change, since they are obviously suffering the most and not to blame?

Because then we would be in debt for all the wars for oil and resources and land we have waged around the world.  When powerful and hugely polluting countries like the U.S. take things by force, things like oil, things like land for pipelines, and then use that stolen oil and land to further pollute the world, is the most massive and expensive of wrongs.

This is obvious to people from most other countries.  It’s obvious that developed highly-polluting countries have to make this right, both by ending our own pollution and then helping developing countries continue to develop without pollution.   That’s it in a nutshell, and why certain dishonest and frantic political factions in the U.S. are terribly resistant to action on climate change. It’s why dishonest politicians such as Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann continue to deceive the American public about climate change in every way they can.

Imagine what is being said in meetings at Exxon this week.

We have to fight back.  Climate change is going to be worse tomorrow than today.   “We need a real climate deal, and we need it now, not tomorrow.”

More on Nnimmo Bassey here and here (an interview).

COP15: Two Agreements Coming

Posted on by

Today Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC executive secretary, said that there will probably be two agreements at Copenhagen.  This is big news for a rather mechanical week with lots of negotiations, text editing,  and politicians here in the U.S. making announcements any time they feel they’re being ignored (which is often).   Add to that leaks and big pronouncements that the talks are in disarray and it sounds like the whole thing is a waste of time.  But it’s not.  It is hard to keep up with all that is going on at this climate summit, COP15. There are the regular meetings and then there are hundreds of side meetings that aren’t on the official schedule.   Here is the press conference from today.

“Briefing the press on day four of the conference, Yvo de Boer highlighted progress made in the area of technology, where there is agreement on a strong new structure to deliver on technology once the finance is in place.  This new technology mechanism includes an Executive Body responsible for accelerating action on technology development and transfer, as well as a new Consultative Network for Climate Technologies.

Mr. de Boer announced that negotiators have two days left before Ministers begin to arrive on Saturday, when the COP President will take stock of progress so far.  On the question of the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, Mr. de Boer said that “the Kyoto Protocol will and must survive,” emphasizing that “the Kyoto Protocol is the only legally binding instrument we have to act on climate change.” He pointed out the time needed for a new instrument to be ratified and enter into force, and stressed the importance for the market mechanisms of avoiding any gap.”

You really can’t get much from these clips of press briefings and they sound much drier than what is actually going on there.

It would be better to watch some of the videos but the UN isn’t releasing this media as podcasts or anything portable — you have to go to their website to look up the videos.   So, visit the UNFCCC website if you want to follow what is going on in Copenhagen. They are negotiating a new text to extend Kyoto, which hasn’t helped, and the main thing going for it seems to be that it’s a legal document. Now it looks like there may be two agreements. This is from Bloomberg:

Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) — United Nations negotiators will probably propose two climate agreements this month, with an extension of the Kyoto Protocol controlling emissions until a wider deal is struck, said the top official at talks in Denmark.

The first accord will extend the protocol, whose targets expire in 2012, Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said today in an interview in Copenhagen. A second, perhaps ratified later by all nations including the U.S., would be a new treaty.

With all these treaties being discussed, you would think [...]

Climate and Copenhagen News December 10

Posted on by

From Day 4 of COP15

A new report by 100 of Europe’s leading marine scientists was released today, with researchers warning that the Earth’s oceans are becoming acidic at a faster rate than at any time in the last 55 million years.

“The report said that the seas were absorbing high levels of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as a result of human activity and that the acidity of the oceans has increased 30 percent since the Industrial Revolution. The study, an exhaustive review of existing scientific research into ocean acidification, said that coral reefs, some mollusks and the algae and plankton that are essential to the marine food web will be “severely affected” by 2050 because of the acidification problem.”

“Dr Helen Phillips, chief executive of Natural England, which co-sponsored the report, said: “The threat to the delicate balance of the marine environment cannot be overstated – this is a conservation challenge of unprecedented scale and highlights the urgent need for effective marine management and protection.”

WILL CARBON MARKETS or cap and trade schemes repair the oceans? No, only emissions cuts will help the ocean.

Obama Calls for Carbon Dioxide Cuts

Accepting his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, U.S. President Obama said that failing to address global warming could lead to growing conflict in the world as rising temperatures cause climate-related upheaval and an increase in natural disasters. “The world must come together to confront climate change,” Obama said in his Nobel acceptance speech, as the climate conference in nearby Copenhagen entered its fourth day. “There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine, and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades.”

At a subsequent press conference, Obama threw his support behind a plan under which industrialized nations would pay poorer nations not to cut down their tropical rainforests. Obama showed a good grasp of the details of the plan, known as REDD — Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. “I am very impressed with the model that has been built between Norway and Brazil that allows for effective monitoring and ensures that we are making progress in avoiding deforestation of the Amazon.” Obama said. “It’s probably the most cost-effective way for us to address the issue of climate change.” Developing a mechanism for REDD programs worldwide is one of the key goals of the Copenhagen climate summit.

De Boer Sees Progress on Green-Tech Plan

In Copenhagen, Yvo de Boer, the chief UN climate change negotiator, said that “good progress” was being made to create a program in which industrialized nations transfer renewable energy technologies to developing countries. He said that a proposed UN clean technology mechanism would make available solar, wind, and other forms of renewable energy to poorer countries that can’t afford to develop the technologies on their own. But de Boer said that for the Copenhagen summit to be a success, wealthy nations must commit to making steeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. He said he wanted industrialized [...]

Climate Hackergate: A Well-Orchestrated Campaign of Harassment

Posted on by

Repeated criminal attempts to break into universities and access scientific emails have happened several times, not just once. It’s becoming more clear that these are organized attempts to sabotage any action on climate change, especially before the Copenhagen summit.

Remember Nixon’s crime — Watergate. That was an illegal break-in from which all other “gates” are named. The illegal break-in was the crime, not to be confused with some effort to take correspondence out of context and fool the public into thinking something that is happening is not happening. Watergate was clearly a crime. Climate Hackergate is a serious crime. The fact that it is happening over and over again makes it a conspiracy.  It’s a form of political terrorism too.  Sabotaging the climate talks and ending attempts to mitigate climate change is tantamount to condemning millions of people to death.  Below is a recent article on this from Raw Story:

“A series of repeated break-in and computer hacking attempts at a Canadian climate research institute are a sign of a “well-orchestrated campaign of harassment” against climate researchers ahead of the Copenhagen summit, several news sources report.

Employees at the University of Victoria, in British Columbia, have revealed that the school’s Centre for Climate Modelling has experienced at least two break-ins in recent months, as well as several attempts at hacking into the center’s computer network.

The news comes a week after revelations that computer hackers stole thousands of emails from a climate research center at the University of East Anglia in the UK, some of which purportedly show attempts to cover up data that does not fit with claims about global warming.

Those leaked emails are at the center of a political push-back by climate skeptics, who are arguing that the “Climategate” emails show that global warming is a fraud, or at least has been exaggerated.

Canada’s National Post reports:

“Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and key contributor to the Nobel prize-winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says there have been a number of attempted breaches in recent months, including two successful break-ins at his campus office in which a dead computer was stolen and papers were rummaged through.

“The key thing is to try to find anybody who’s involved in any aspect of the IPCC and find something that you can … take out of context,” Mr. Weaver said, drawing a parallel to the case of British climate researcher Phil Jones, who was forced to step down this week after skeptics seized upon hacked emails they allege point to a plot to exaggerate the threat of climate change.

“People don’t like it, so they try to discredit it, and the way they try to discredit it is by attacking the individual responsible for it,” Mr. Weaver said.

“They went through my desk drawers,” Weaver told the Victoria Times-Colonist. “It was bizarre and the only computer that wasn’t secured was [...]

The Sad Story of Cap and Trade

Posted on by

Cap and Trade is not the answer.

This is a great video by the Story of Stuff people.  “We’re trashing the planet, we’re trashing each other, and we’re not even having fun.”

Cap and trade is a huge problem. The video maker’s explanation:

The Story of Cap & Trade is a fast-paced, fact-filled look at the leading climate solution being discussed at Copenhagen and on Capitol Hill. Host Annie Leonard introduces the energy traders and Wall Street financiers at the heart of this scheme and reveals the “devils in the details” in current cap and trade proposals: free permits to big polluters, fake offsets and distraction from whats really required to tackle the climate crisis. If youve heard about Cap & Trade, but arent sure how it works (or who benefits), this is the film is for you.

It’s easy to agree with this assessment even if it’s simplistic and she makes some claims that are hard to prove.  The Story of Stuff original movie was longer and more detailed. Cap and Trade is a difficult scheme to understand for non-economists (and even some of them).  What’s happening now is that countries are setting emissions (and will make it official in Copenhagen) goals no one can realistically meet using the process of cap and trade by the target date.  2050 seems a long way off,  but it’s not.   It’s too soon to get down to a necessary reduction in CO2 emissions without something more aggressive than cap and trade.   The goals are usually a reduction in emissions by 80% or more by 2050, but depending on markets and trading is not a  serious way to get there.  It doesn’t look like cap and trade will even get us close.

It’s also easy to agree that the cap is good and  necessary.  Carbon taxes are also necessary, and so is returning the revenue to the people, and not with a payroll tax.   We are still losing jobs, too many people are unemployed, some by choice (the self employed)  so payroll taxes are not the way to go.  It should not be tied to employers or taxes, just keep it simple and give direct rebates to people in the form of direct deposit or direct payment of energy bills.  Either way, allowances are “not cool” at all.   Giveaways to polluters are the most uncool thing of all.  Tying ourselves down to coal for ever and ever is the worst thing of all.  There is no such thing as clean coal. Cap that carbon!

Also obvious:  We should leave the carbon that is left in the ground, already sequestered. Why dig it out, burn it and then sequester it?  It’s not at all necessary.

People who think it’s necessary are approaching this from an economic point of view. The world has to look at this differently.

Climate change is a natural science issue about how our environment, whether we like it or not, is changing drastically in response [...]

How to Waste Trillions on Capturing Carbon

Posted on by

The "We got it, so let's use it" argument is a bad one, especially when it comes to coal - and nuclear weapons.

“Advisory panel calls for a $1.2 trillion investment in carbon capture and storage”

Remember “There’s No Such Thing as Clean Coal“?  The new “conventional wisdom” is the opposite:  Let’s fool the public into thinking there is such a thing as clean coal, and make billions and billions of dollars from it. How?  We’ll just tell them we have to use it. We’ll say we can “capture” all the CO2. Why do we have to use it?  Because there’s so much of it.

I’m very grateful this argument does not apply to the thousands of nuclear warheads the U.S. has bought and paid for.

The mere fact that something is plentiful and cheap and therefore we have to use all of it is an argument that shouldn’t apply to any fossil fuel.  In the first place, we don’t have to use fossil fuels anymore because we know what kind of energy is renewable, we know how to get it and how to use it.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter to the pollution profiteers what the truth is, as long as they’re raking in the dough. It doesn’t matter how many people eventually die from climate change to the pollution profiteers.

In fact, in order to prevent catastrophic climate change, we should stop using coal right now.   If carbon capture and storage is ever to be used, it won’t be for 10-20 or maybe even 30 years.  It might work only partially.  If so, it’s mostly useless.  No one knows to which degree it will work, yet even people who know better are insisting we have to try and therefore depend on CCS.  And they are willing to gamble $1.2 trillion on it.  It would make a lot more sense not to put that CO2 up into the atmosphere to begin with.

Advocates of this eternal use of every last bit of coal are some of the same people who think health care for everyone is too expensive, or that developing solar power all over the U.S.  is too ambitious.  But it’s not too ambitious to them to sink  $1.2 trillion into development of  something that might not work at all.

Wouldn’t that kind of money buy a lot of solar panels?

An emphasis on clean renewable energy is no longer something people seem terribly excited about.     Health care and other issues have long ago trumped concern about climate change.  It’s now generally accepted in Washington that the cap and trade bill won’t pass our Congress next year,  or possibly ever.   Lawmakers (lawyers) are now actually flirting with a carbon tax, which would be an enormous improvement to the cap and trade idea.  The bad news is, Republican Lindsey Graham is the one now writing the most eagerly anticipated bill, (see below)  despite the fact that we already have several better climate bills that have received very little attention.

Graham’s will [...]

Smack the Email Hack Attack

Posted on by

Here is it:  The Last and Final Smackdown of the illegal hacking and other break-in crimes committed in recent weeks (one involved stealing a dead computer and old papers!)  being used by the misguided and dishonest Denial Movement to score political points.  Right-wing talk radio is all over this — mainly because their understanding of global warming is so compromised by their politics.  It is the last because FN has already probably devoted too much space and time to Hackergate and deniers lately, but what they are saying has to be corrected and exposed.

Now we can all move on.  “Climate deniers have been making a lot of noise about a set of stolen emails from one of the world’s leading climate centers, The Universtiy of East Anglia. The spin they’re putting out is that the emails reveal what they always suspected, an evil global conspiracy.”

There is another video at the bottom of this entry.   Also see:

Impact of CRU Hacking on the AMS Statement on Climate Change

AMS Headquarters has received several inquiries asking if the material made public following the hacking of e-mails and other files from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia has any impact on the AMS Statement on Climate Change, which was approved by the AMS Council in 2007 and represents the official position of the Society.  Read on for Nature’s take on this.

And from Nature:

Climatologists under pressure

“Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial ’smoking gun’: proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.. . . .”

It’s a good science article too.

Here is the best, last video on this topic unless Quentin Tarantino makes one: