CO2 levels are going up and humans are responsible for it.
While the implications aren't clear, especially regarding time frames, it's worth pointing out that without some change CO2 ppm will continue to go up without any obvious ceiling. I'm skeptical of time frame implications, but it's reasonable to suggest we should mitigate our CO2 contribution due to the fact that the science isn't settled. Also due to that fact there should be at least some sense of urgency in that regard.
This is where things tend to get political, meaning to say, how forcefully should we be in our attempts to reduce CO2 output?
There are two paths to that end, and most people are only aware of one. To tax and legislate or not. IOW, looking at the extremes of the obvious path, to do nothing suggests there's no problem that needs to be fixed OR draconian measures are needed to curtail CO2 output. To that end, proposals that would halt CO2 increases haven't even be suggested. The most extreme measures would only slow the increase.
The other path? There is a problem that needs to be fixed but nothing should be done about it.
At least, not as a function of policy, unless of course the policy was to increase funding for alternative energy. But, it's not necessary. Why? Because human curiosity and the desire for profit will take care of the problem all by itself. I will lay out the case for why this is so and the time frame involved.
Despite my suggestion that government funding isn't necessary it wouldn't hurt. Whether it's an appropriate use of government funds is a different matter. One person might suggest that capable governments have an obligation to provide such funding and that the response in that regard has been pitiful, while another person might suggest the government has no business trying to do something it's not structured for and that while it wouldn't hurt, government's ability to accelerate the process is questionable.
ITER represents the funding that government has contributed. Planned to go online around 2025 it represents the most conventional approach to producing energy from fusion. Detractors of government funding will suggest that it's over budget, setbacks will likely push the date past 2025 and private corporations may end up beating them to the punch.
Meanwhile there are many companies working on fusion. The science is sound, it's just a matter of engineering solutions and funding. It seems likely to be that we'll see fusion generators producing energy in the next couple decades, and only a matter of decades beyond that before fusion plants are going up everywhere.
There are a variety of companies working on battery technology using alternate materials like carbon and sodium to replace lithium. It seems likely that in the next couple decades we'll see those products hitting the market. Batteries will be cheaper, will not require rare materials, will hold much more energy than current technology and can be recharged a practically unlimited number of times without degradation.
Between the advancement of those two technologies gas and coal will eventually be financial liabilities in an unregulated free market.
There are a variety of companies working on test tube meat. The media currently suggests that in the future cultured meat will be the poor man's meat while the rich continue to eat animals. However, it seems likely that eventually cultured meat will eventually be tastier and healthier than the real thing, and it seems likely that in the next couple decades we'll see widespread availability of such products. There may be a niche market for real meat, but for the most part raising animals for food will eventually be a poor decision in an unregulated free market.
I think most people regardless of their current stance will begin to frown on eating animals once there's an alternative that tastes better.
What about other technologies? I'm not a fan of wind and solar "farms" but I do like the idea of off grid energy and/or non-localized energy production. Solar energy technology, while still not ready to take over fossil fuels has consistently improved since it's introduction and will likely continue to improve. Initial costs will continue to go down and maintenance cost will go down. Solar farms will probably be a thing of the past but buildings and vehicles will be ideal surfaces for solar energy collection.
If the various governments of the world want a halt to CO2 and methane emissions all they have to do is get out of the way. If we rely only on the desire for profit and scientific curiosity it seems likely CO2 emissions will return to pre-industrial levels within the next 100-200 years. Furthermore, CO2 level increases as a percentage of current will begin to drop in the next 40-50 years and probably level off in a similar time frame.
I'm not going to provide links because it would take dozens of them to hint at the scope and variety of technologies that are being funded today, but I encourage you to do some research yourself. The information is easy to find with obvious search terms. Also, I considered posting this in the political forum. I think it's best served here, hope it doesn't get moved, but whatever.
-------------------- rahz
comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace I am I feel I do I love I speak I see I know
why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.
|