Climate Change and Energy Policy — Problems and Solutions
In connection with climate change and our energy policy, I recently heard someone say, “21st Century problems demand 21st Century solutions.” I laughed derisively at the time, as it sounded like any one of hundreds of political slogans of yesteryear, like “Don’t change horses in the middle of the stream,” or perhaps a truism like “Plant your corn early.” But I wonder if there isn’t something more substantive here.
It’s beginning to look like climate change may be the defining phenomenon of the 21st Century. By the year 2050, the effects of rising sea levels and extreme weather events, coupled with a world population that will have exceeded 10 billion, could be causing hardship for nearly everyone on the planet in one way or another. Obviously the poor and middle class (to the degree to which that dwindling segment still exists) will suffer more than the rich, but it appears that no one will be having an easy time.
In terms of solutions, let’s acknowledge that we are not powerless to do something about this. Having said that, it will take an unprecedented amount of effort and international cooperation. Countries around the world should be pouring enormous resources into clean energy R&D and energy efficiency. We all ought to be educating our people of the importance of energy conservation.
I suppose it’s 100% correct to call this a 21st Century solution. It will be a kind of repurposing the political will of which we demonstrated ourselves capable in the 20th Century (remember what we did to win World War II? Put a man on the moon?), and combine that with technology that has advanced tremendously since that point.
Can we do it? Yes. Will we do it? I guess we’ll see.
Rolling with your thesis here, this reminds me of the sci-fi movies where some great tribulation causes the nations of the earth to unite in whatever the appropriate effort might be.
I love a good fiction more often than I love reality. I stay away from the ignoble or dystopic ones to some degree, because I find the whole “federation of planets” universe so much more satisfying. We all become the best we can be, etc. When we watch the news feeds, we love the human interest stories of success in some manner or another. Based on these characteristics of what would seem to be the majority of us, one imagines a bright future of shared purpose and innovation.
Trouble is, whether it be in the evening with the talking heads or the morning with the e-reader, there is nothing but a solid stream of people not getting along at almost any level one cares to look at. And no, before you even say it, its not the news organizations only focusing on the seamy side. This stuff really is the fat part under the curve.
So, it would seem like our future trends toward the dystopic scenarios despite most of us personally subscribing to the more noble side of the equation. I have no understanding of why that is case. Will we save ourselves from ourselves? An interesting question.
It is indeed, Arlene. And I appreciate your suggestion that I become a political advisor. I would love the job, though it seems that I’d last about 10 minutes in that environment. I’m not sure we have an appetitite for the confronting the truth.
We will see if people like hearing the truth. I am running on preparing our children for the future and providing the infrastructure that they will need to have a prosperous society here in Texas. Education, Water, Transportation and Energy. Great plans but no one wants to spend a penny.
I suspect no one wants to hear the truth but it is worth a try.
Arlene, I too have a great affection for that bold “Federation of Planets” scenario of the future of Humanity. Roddenberry was certainly a visionary. I recall the words of the wise character of Picard in explanation to a guest not familiar with Federation society, “The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives.” I wonder if we’ll ever get there.
There have been parallels pointed up in recent research between the historically unprecedented plenty fossil energy has provided and the unequaled expansion of our recognition of human rights and of international law in defense of them.
The conclusion was that we are civilized to the extent that our bellies remain full. In the face of privation, the rules are often abandoned.
We don’t have much time. We must use the last of the reasonably priced ancient sunlight to construct the new sustainable infrastructure based on the modern energy streaming in daily from our beautiful sun. Conservation and efficiency are also vitally important, as is the evolution of our agricultural practices.
Why isn’t it happening? We are ruled by entrenched moneyed interests for which profit streams upward from the status quo, and from which change will require both sacrifice and investment. These interests have increasingly purchased our elections and our legislators and media.
The impacts of this throned cash are broad and deep. Until we recognize that “corporate personhood” is a fraud, and that money is not “Free Speech”, we’ll continue to suffer under the most craven cowardice and vicious greed imaginable.
The change will not be instigated by boardroom decisions, or in the halls of the statehouses they now own – it must be demanded by the people across the nation and the world.
Truth
Non-Violence
Cooperation
Direct Action
Perseverance
Yes It is Rightly said that “21st Century problems demand 21st Century solutions.” As I said somewhere,That the Renewable Energy is like a Wheel-Chair and Not a Solution to this Polio (crippling reliance on Fossil)
Craig,
I’ve doubled-down on my commentary about the drought. It’s still worse than people realize… and it’s a big enough deal that I’m trying to get that across.
I thought you’d be interested in the discussion, and may want to try to get a few other people to start talking about the drought with respect to climate change, and how the climate models show this will progress:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/780441-an-agricultural-apocalypse-this-drought-is-still-worse-than-you-think
Anyhow. Use what you can, and thanks for all that you do.
speaking of technology having an impact, please Google the phrase LENR. It’s looking like it’s real, and is about to pop out at the world. It pretty much has to be the ultimate disruptive technology.
How about “A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse”, is in order here. Politicians want to get elected, not change things. They would not mind being famous for a positive change, but only if that got them elected again. Politicians have not the leadership to take the people to a solution so they do not really try. If they try, they meet opposition from who is profiting from what needs changing, and if it really needs changing, it is a really powerful opposition . So trivia is addressed.
Ecological politics need not restrict itself to ideologically motivated lifestyle politics; today, it coincides with the politics of production, the economy and the physical flow of energy, materials and resources that exist globally. A planetary system of material exchange between human beings, and between human beings and their environment, is the ongoing twenty-first century project, one that must persist through the short, medium, and long-term, and that should be viewed as the single greatest opportunity ever presented to humanity. Recognizing our place within the Anthropocene (the new geological era where increasing power and effect of humanity on the Earth’s systems challenges the very ecological systems we rely upon), we realize that human potential for compassion, intelligence, and future orientation/durability, is the most vital resource available to us all.
At the way thing going we in trouble long before 2050 as global warming is not being taken seriously as the glacial melts in the past few years equal what happen in the past hundred years and we see huge shifts in climates starting to happen now which many again make the deserts green and the current plains of wheat and corn fields baron which will cause worldwide starvation like we never seen before.
Can I do something extremely unpopular here? I want to defend politicians.
Government-backed action against climate change interferes with principles that are fundamental for many Americans. It asks them to abandon their belief that competitive markets and small government always deliver the best solutions most quickly and at lowest cost.
Americans know that their country’s success in the 20th century was based on cheap fossil fuels. They are being asked to give up on proven fossil fuels and to use sunlight, wind or wave power instead.
Americans are being asked to accept that the government should tax its citizens to fund inefficient and expensive new energy experiments that private investors don’t consider a good enough bet to do on their own. Some even want government to tax all fossil fuels to pay for damage from emissions that was happily ignored by everyone up to now.
I believe that markets have failed. I believe it is necessary for central government to step in to protect the common good. I believe, like Craig (and the governments of Germany and South Korea among others), that renewable energy provides a major opportunity for the whole world to take a step to a new level.
But Gee, I can also see that it is going to be a very hard sell – especially in rural towns – where voters have always relied on their own ingenuity and local services, and see the Federal Government as a taker of taxes for very little benefit.
Those politicians who would like to shape a US Energy Policy that will protect our environment have a tough, tough job on their hands.