What Rhymes With "Germs?"

[chris_gerrib]

I've written before how I think that global warming will be this century's equivalent to the Victorian Era's germ theory debates. To recap, at the start of the 19th century, the idea that microbes could cause sickness was ridiculed if it was even proposed. By the end of the century, it was widely accepted, although the ability to actually cure infection was still lacking. Also popular at the end of the century was the idea that germs could be wiped out.

As we simmer in the summer of 2010, so far the hottest year on record, I see echoes of that debate, on both sides. On the "global warming is a hoax!" side, I see people saying, well, the same sorts of ignorant bullshit that the anti-germ crowd said back in the day. History, I am afraid, will not look kindly on them.

On the "global warming is real" side, I see some of the same ignorance in reverse. Getting to "carbon neutral" as a society is simply not going to happen, any more than we can wipe out all germs. Just like we need various microbes to survive, we'll need to burn carbon for at least the foreseeable future. Now, the first rule of messes is "don't make the mess bigger" so every pound of carbon not dumped into the atmosphere is a a pound we won't have to deal with later.

But we will have to deal with it later. Much like Baron Lister, our approach to global warming will be a mixture of prevention and mitigation. This will run the gambit from planting trees to full-on geo-engineering.

In the year 2210, our descendants will be talking about global warming skeptics like we talk about "germ skeptics."

Comments

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Can't agree more.

The other canard I'm tired of reading is the idea that reducing carbon use involves the-end-of-civilization-as-we-know-it, it doesn't. If anything the move could be, like other such shifts, a net economic boon.

But that's unpopular in certain factions.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The other canard I'm tired of reading is the idea that reducing carbon use involves the-end-of-civilization-as-we-know-it, it doesn't. If anything the move could be, like other such shifts, a net economic boon.

Only if we switch to other energy sources, in such a way that our per-capita control of usable energy continues to increase. In other words, we can get away from fossil fuels without crashing the economy only if we actually deploy alternative energy sources -- right now, nuclear fission and ground-based solar; eventually, nuclear fusion and space-based solar; in the longest of long runs, ...(?).... .

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Yes. And?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I think it's bigger than "global warming." I think the discovery is "anthropogenic climate change," and the awareness that things we do can affect the climate.

As our per capita control of energy continues to grow, eventually the Earth's climate will be mostly anthropogenic. Which raises an interesting point, which has so far been little-debated ...

... given that we have in fact no world government, who will decide in which direction or directions the Earth's climate is to be changed?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

In the year 2210, our descendants will be directly managing the climate (and perhaps even weather) by using orbit-based solettes, lunettes and various sorts of energy beams as tools. The interesting question becomes -- who or what will manage the weather?